BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Siblings should be Allowed to Marry

Thinking about it, why does the United States not allow siblings who truly love each other to marry one another? The scientific side of the argument does prove that genetic disorders are more likely to appear in their children, but there really is no real reason to prevent them from marrying. It doesn't harm other people in anyway. Also, as this is a serious debate, any arguments that pertain to religion shall not be permitted and promptly ignored.
Intermediate Debate Competition R3: The Crimean Referendum was was not legitimate or democratic

All right, since there are only 6 hours left on the timer and this has been dragged on for long enough, I accept. It took a while to start this debate because I and Pro were both a bit wishy-washy on the resolution, and I didn't step up to discuss it in depth. The resolution is still not very clear right now, but it has something to do with the Crimean referendum. Pro had stated that the terms for this debate are up for negotiation, and looked like he was liberal about it in the comments. What I see here is that Pro proposed a thesis, "The Crimean Referendum of March 16 need not be respected or recognized by any state or international jurisdiction..."and some stuff to support it. The things he said to support it are his points, and I'm not going to be guided by solely refuting those points. BoP should be shared in this instance, so I propose my own thesis, "The results of the Crimean Referendum and future Russian annexation of Crimea is just and should be respected by the international community, because the decision was popular, sovereign, and just; consequently, the international community should not pose sanctions on Crimea or Russia or their affiliates or take other interventionalist actions because of the Referendum."I suspect that Pro might agree with the first part of my thesis, because the decision passed with such a majority. However, if he does, the second part of my thesis - the part about intervention - should be game.I agree with Pro's definitions.
Intermediate Debate Competition R3: The Crimean Referendum was was not legitimate or democratic

THESIS: The Crimean Referendum of March 16 need not be respected or recognized by any state or international jurisdiction, insofar as the Referendum was conducted by agents of a foreign government (Russia) during an unprovoked military occupation of Crimea by that same foreign entity. The Referendum did not meet the minimum standards for free or fair elections and the outcome failed to reflect substantial opposition to joining Russia as a federal subject.Terms of agreement:THE CRIMEAN REFERENDUM: was a referendum on the status of Crimea held on March 16, 2014, by the legislature of Crimea as well as by the local government of Sevastopol, both subdivisions of Ukraine. The referendum asked the people of Crimea whether they wanted to join Russia as a federal subject, or if they wanted to restore the 1992 Crimean constitution and Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine. [1]LEGITIMATE: in this debate, legitimate shall be defined as conforming to globally accepted norms of international conduct and/or conforming to international agreements and signed treaties.DEMOCRATIC: of or relating to a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.FREE AND FAIR ELECTION: for the purposes of this debate, the standards for a free and fair election shall be defined the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance's widely adopted "International Electoral Standards"http://www.idea.int...********************Per rules of the competition, first round is for acceptance.Second round is for presentation of arguments.Third round is for rebuttals, redirection.Fourth round may offer rebuttals or conclusion as the author sees fit. I have offered 4 rounds, 10,000 characters, voting period 10 days. These variables are negotiable and subject to approval by Con. My thanks to Con in advance for the opportunity to discuss this issue and for a good debate.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Intermediate Debate Competition R3: The Crimean Referendum was was not legitimate or democratic

Thanks to my opponent and his rebuttal. The Crimean Referendum was conducted by a sovereign authority My opponemt first asserts that “the Crimean Referendum was not conducted by a sovereign authority”. Con argues that since the Crimean parliament was taken a hold be armed men, it cannot be trusted. But the events prior to this “takeover” must be taken into account. In February 2014, a minority of Euromaidan protesters violently attacked the Party of Regions HQ, setting it ablaze [1]. The PoR is the pro-Russian majority party that Yanukovich belonged to that gained 41.56% of the seats in Parliament in the 2012 elections. The party was severely restricted by the new Western backed government after the revolution [3]. Crimea, a strong hold of the PoR (with 70%+ of seats), was affected. It is not rational to attribute a restoration of an elected government as a violation of sovereignty. In fact, if the new government of Crimea did not the referendum, then it would be unjust. The Referendum did offer a choice. My opponent’s second contention is that the Crimean Referendum did not offer a choice. But it clear did. The choices were to join Russia, or return to the 1992 Consitution, which stated Crimea was part of Ukraine. The 1992 Constitution was approved by Ukraine, and did not grant parliament the right to vote to join Russia, as Con asserted. Claims of “de facto independence” are wholly unsubstantiated and mainly consist of either the wrong version of the 1992 Constitution, Russian invasion, or why since the majority want to join Russian any way, they will just make another referendum [5]. The results where reliable. My opponent spends this argument arguing why the results were not reliable since the majority of Crimeans are ethnic Russians. That simply does not make sense. The 3 year-old polls of whether Crimeans considered Ukraine the “motherland” or whether they wished to break away from Ukraine are unreflective, since “motherland” could well mean “the country I live in” to many Crimeans. The years after Yanukovich was elected was likely to increase Crimean preference to the more pro-Russian Ukrainian government, and after seeing how the new Ukrainian government ignored the Crimean favored candidate, more Crimeans likely wish to break away. The vote was boycotted by a small but substantial amount of the population who knew they would not have a chance of swaying the election, thus reflecting the large majority of the “yes” votes. The lack of the European observer is understandable The whole point was anti-European, of cources European observers are not welcomed. ========== [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://www.kyivpost.com... [4] http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua... (it’s in Russian) [5] http://www.foxnews.com...
Christianity's teachings and beliefs are false (clear enough?)

To make this argument you must feel that the consequences of religion are worse than the consequences of atheism. You can't make that argument because you can't play out an alternate timeline where religion never existed. This anti-theist argument is primarily "God is a jerk who wants to cramp my style". Pretty much I've noticed that if God wouldn't like the idea. you're heading for a train wreck objectively and with all due skepticism.
Christianity's teachings and beliefs are false (clear enough?)

I find it highly ILLOGICAL, in fact, for 'God' to say that: Adulterers and adulteresses should be killed (Deuteronomy 22:22) Homosexuality is an abomination (Leviticus 20:13) A man should cut off the hand of his wife when she helps him in a fight by grabbing his opponents testicles (seriously, what the...) (Deuteronomy 25:12) It is a sin to disbelieve in the most unbelievable story (The Ten Commandments) Women may not teach or have authority over men (Timothy 2:11) Etc etc How, then, does God's apparent definition of sin match logic's morals? And even if they do agree on morals, so do other myths and religions totally different to the christian one, so how could this actually be evidence that the creator of the universe came down to earth in human form, was born of a virgin in the middle east, was crucified and resurrected in order that he may forgive us? Please refute my points by showing me how this is logic.
Anarchy V.S. Monarchy Pro Anarchy or Con Monarchy

That's disappointing. I'll keep my arguments brief. An absolute Monarchy has huge potential to benefit the citizens economically and socially. The use of a single economic system such as capitalism or socialism could potentially benefit the entire country. Saudi Arabia is a good example. One of the wealthiest nations in the world is an absolute Monarchy. It also simplifies the law and speeds up trials since it is all up to one man. An absolute monarchy has potential to be a great country when paired with a good leader. A good example is Louis the XIV of France who valued the State enough to focus on it's well being. (https://www.princeton.edu...) That is the sole difficulty. The odds of having a trustworthy and honorable leader are far greater than having a successful anarchic society. An anarchy is according to Oxford English Dictionaries "Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal." To maintain anarchy there cannot be a public enforcer of laws. There can be no laws. We would immediately see a descent into complete disorder, and like Pro claimed private militias/security forces would rise up. If it ever reached the point that a single militia obtained control of the country it would cease to be anarchy. Therefore we have militias at war with one another, extreme violence, and many deaths. There would also be no way to ensure militias actually enforced the law. Militias would likely be the prime lawbreakers and frequently abuse citizens. It would be an ineffective way to enforce any principles. People would have no reason to not cheat others in business with an ineffective law. Anarchy would lead to a disorganized and dangerous society.
Anarchy V.S. Monarchy Pro Anarchy or Con Monarchy

Anarchy V.S. Monarchy Which do you think is better? I personally believe that Anarchy is better but in order to understand what I mean I have to define my terms to me Anarchy is a society or country that follows the non-aggression principle which plainly states you can do whatever you want as long as you are not hurting anyone or anyone property who would enforce this the individual people, private militias, or security forces. I see Monarchy as having a King or Queen being the all-powerful head government whatever he or she says go's. So the reason behind my choosing is that I rather live in peace and be able to do what I want (as long as I'm not hurting anyone or anything) instead of having to bow to some King or Queen.
I am richer than you

Thanks to my opponent for her quick reply. I will go right in to my counterarguments. Intelligence: Anyone can participate in essay contests, compete for most scholarships, and take standardized tests. I did not reference grades, class rank, or anything else that my opponent would not have access to for the reason that she is a home schooled student. Even if my opponent did not take these tests, she could have provided some other metrics by which to gauge her intelligence. Instead, she mentioned nothing at all and simply assumed that she was smarter. This is no evidence at all. My opponent also demonstrates a lack of understanding of percentiles and percents. The top 1% means that you are the best out of 100. The top 99% means that you are the worst out of 100. I have no doubt that my opponent could be in the top 99% because even the worst person is. For percentiles, this is the opposite. The 99th percentile is the best and the 1st percentile is the worst. Wealth: My opponent misses the point of this objection. Wealth does not say anything about a person because it is a possession. Anyone can win the lottery. What is important is if that person earned the wealth. My opponent did not earn anything, her father did. Conclusion: There are no bikini pictures of me because I do not wear bikinis. However, I do not doubt AskBob's ability to find them.
I am richer than you

Intelligence: Well, we cannot be compared in intelliegence, right? Because I've been homeschooled all life long. But OBVIOUSLY, if I went to highschool I would do so much better than that. You're only 1%? I bet if I go to high school, I could be like 99%. Wealth: We're not talking about Genetics, GRAPE OWL. We're talking about whom is better than who. That means economy as well. My family earns 1.5 million dollar. I checked our bank account, honest. Because of all these, I am much better than you. And you're a guy and there are bikini pictures of you?
I am richer than you

Introduction: Hello all. Thank you for tuning in to this mindblowingly idiotic debate. I would like to start by noting that the resolution states that my opponent must prove that she is "better" and me, not that she is "richer" as the title suggests. I offer that one person can be considered better than another if he or she is possesses superior qualities. The importance of qualities can generally be assessed in terms of how depend the activities that humans undergo are dependant on them. In other words, I am pulling some psuedo-Aristotelian garbage out of my rectum. I think it will suffice for the prupose of this debate. Argument One: Intelligence This website verifies that I am a National Merit Semifinalist, which means I scored in the top 1% of American high school students on the PSAT. [1] I would obviously have to be intelligent to do such a thing. It also proves that I won money for my academic work against mediocre competition. I recieved a score of 2290 on the SAT, 33 on the ACT, and scores of 800, 790, 790, and 790 on the Biology, World History, US History, and Literature SAT Subject tests. All of these scores put me in the top 1% except for the US History test, which places me in the top 2%. I can provide images that show these scores and my first name, but I don't want to go through the trouble. Given my verifiable PSAT score, I think that these numbers a plausible. Now, being able to take standardized tests well does not make someone a genius by any means. There are very smart people who recieve lower scores. However, there clearly must be something going for me that allows me to outperform all by a few thousand other students in the country. I will assure you that it is no my ability to afford test prep material. Unless my opponent can produce some evidence of equal plausibility to suggest that she is smarter than me, I think this point can be conceded. I will note her poor grammar does not suggest that she is intelligent. Argument Two: Wealth Wealth is not a trait possessed by an individual, so it is not relevant to determining who is better. Anyone could win the lottery. Pro is not even the one responsible for her family's income, her father is. This trait is irrelevant. Conclusion: Intelligence is an important trait to consider when determining who is better. It is certainly not the only trait since many qualities that humans possess are important to their success. However, it is the only relevant quality my opponent has brought up. Unequivocally. Sources: [1] http://www.matildajoslyngage.org... AskBob, please do not use my academic credentials to hunt down bikini pictures of me.
I am richer than you

Pro says contend I am unequivocably better than you Con is burden of proof to say I am not better than you I am unequivocably better than you because I am smarter. My family is unequivocably rich due to the fact that my father is unequivocably earning 1.5 millions of dollars a year. Seeing as that is more than most people gets, I am richer than people, and am richer than you unequivocably.
should the teaching in schools be changed

I thank taterface for instigating this debate.CON - I believe the teaching methods in school should NOT be changed.1) PRO states that he believes "teachers should get ride of the kids in the class that do not apply there selves, don't want to learn, don't care and don't want to be there they should just not be there."I fully agree with PRO on this point, however, teachers already have a method to deal with these kind of kids. Teachers are able to get rid of kids that don't apply themselves by giving them failing grades. These students get held back while other kids progress through the education system. There is nothing wrong with the teaching method.2) PRO also states that the "teacher will waste his/her time on that kid and not the kids that want to learn so they are not getting a good education and a better chance to be successful."PRO fails to realize that these teachers are NOT wasting their time on these kids, but are trying to get them to learn. The teacher is doing his or her job to perfection by trying to get these kids to learn. The teacher is doing a great job here.For kids that want to learn, that want to get a good education, and show a demonstrated ability to learn, there are honors classes for these kids. Again, there is nothing wrong with the teaching method. 3) PRO also states that "the bad kids are already going to bring down are society why waste are time with them." By "bad kids", I will assume PRO is referring to kids that "do not apply there selves, don't want to learn, don't care and don't want to be there." "Bad kids" often face disciplinary measures. They are often taken out of class and put into detention, or some other form of punishment. If these kids cause enough trouble, they get expelled from school. There's no need to change how this work; again, I don't see anything wrong with the teaching method.CONCLUSIONThere are measures in place in schools to address all of PRO's arguments. The teaching method is fine and does not need to be changed. I agree with PRO that the fewer "bad kids" the better, but we have to give them a chance. If they mess up, they will face the consequences.
should the teaching in schools be changed

ok I have a strong argument for this topic I believe that in the class rooms the teachers should get ride of the kids in the class that do not apply there selves, don't want to learn, don't care and don't want to be there they should just not be there. I think this because there are the kid in the class who have the right attitude want to learn and want to get a good job it is harder for them to do that when the ignorant kids are there because the teacher will waste his/her time on that kid and not the kids that want to learn so they are not getting a good education and a better chance to be successful. the bad kids are already going to bring down are society why waste are time with them.
Ontological and teleological arguments cannot accurately tell us whether God exists

Resolved: Ontological and teleological arguments cannot accurately inform humans as to whether God exists The largest pitfall is the definition of God. Pro requires the use of the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, and so I turn there for my definitions of God. From the first definition I take: "the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe" and from the second definition, I take: "a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically: one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality." Though I would not like to be wedded to the phrase "and to require human worship," instead preferring that worship is not required." I think the ontological argument proves the existence of the God of the first definition. I have less faith in the teleological argument; I might invoke the cosmological argument, if permitted by the rules, to support the existence of God of the second definition. In the comments, Pro writes: " . . . I am referring to a priori arguments, which I see as being quite useless." I disagree with his comment that a priori arguments are useless. (Of course, I agree that he sees them that way, but I disagree that he is right in thinking so.) God is often thought to be a necessarily existing being. God exists, but he also exists with mathematical necessity. Whereas "7 + 5 = 12" is necessarily true, without exception, so God exists necessarily and without exception. The ontological argument begins with a conception of God as being perfect. And that his being perfect logically implies his existence. The argument is that the only thing more perfect than the mere conception of God is the existence of that God. Since God is most perfect, he must exist. Before closing, I"d like to set out one form of the ontological argument. This argument comes from my interpretation of the first of Descartes" two arguments. 1. Do to the fallibility I observe in myself, I know that I am imperfect. 2. If I know that I am imperfect, I must know perfection so I can compare myself to that in order to know that I am imperfect. 3. I am unable to produce this knowledge of perfection within myself because I am imperfect. Even if I found perfection in my observations of nature, I could not judge that a thing is perfect due to my judging empirical matters is imperfect. 4. That knowledge of perfection, that tells me I am imperfect, does not arise from within me. It must arise from something outside of me. 5. That something causes the knowledge of perfection in me, and is itself perfect. Therefore, a perfect thing exists. God's being perfect entails his necessary existence, being perfectly powerful, intelligent, and good.
Ontological and teleological arguments cannot accurately tell us whether God exists

Why this debate? Promenent theist apologists like William Lane Craig have spent tremendous amounts of effort polishing Ontological and Teleological arguments. I'd like to stop and ask the question - whether valid or not, does this type of argument reliably lead us to true conclusions and accurate knowledge in the first place?Resolved: Ontological and teleological arguments cannot accurately inform humans as to whether God existsFirst Round is for acceptance.Second round opening statements.Third and fourth round are for rebuttals.No new arguments introduced in fourth round.Parties agree to use definitions as they appear in Merriam-Webster online dictionary:http://www.merriam-webster.com...Where there is confusion from multiple definitions, participants should volunteer which one they are using if prompted by the opposing side. Burden of proof is sharedForfeit is automatic loss of points for conduct and argument.
Electoral College

The electoral college is necessary to mantaining order in american politics. If elections were run by the popular vote, candidates would only campaign in large states like New York and California, without caring about small states like Vermont, Kansas, and Montana, because they won't get alot of votes in small states. The electoral college makes it impossible to win an election without winning these small states. Furthermore, small states have different needs than big states, so the electoral college also encourages candidates to win states with different needs, to show that their platform works for the whole country, not just a single group of voters. The founding fathers themselves were in favor of the electoral college. "The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place." It is my belief that the electoral college must stay in our politics to keep elections fair. Sources http://avalon.law.yale.edu...