BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People will typically vote for what they want versus what is right.

I would like to start by saying that I personally agree with you, but I would like to argue against the resolution for the sake of arguing. The main point that I will make today is that what people want is whats right in the US system. James Madison, father of the constitution and later president of the US, disucsses in various essays in the federalist papers that people vote based on what they want. He says that this will create the competintion and factions that will drive the country. While it may seem morally or logically wrong, the will of the people based on their selfish impulse will help to even out the system, and to advocate the education and force the discussion of various topics. We have to look to the fact that voting on selfish impulse will generally result in a just solution to various issues, at least within the AMerican system. I have more arguments, but its been a long weekend, and Im way too tired. I will bring them up next speech. Thanks again
People will typically vote for what they want versus what is right.

Liberals vote to have the government confiscate (legally steal) that which belongs to others and give it to those who did not earn it in the form of various programs like welfare, nationlized healthcare, etc. Conservative Republicans vote to prohibit two same-sex adults from voluntarily entering into an agreement they call marriage. T These are examples of thing people will gladly have the governement do, but would not dare do themslelves. You wouldn't see a Democrat walking up to his nextdoor neighbor asking him for his wallet. You wouldn't see a Republican crash the gay wedding ceremony nextdoor in protest. That's because they know this is a free country, and people have the right to do what the want and keep what is theirs. But once in a voting booth, all bets are off. People typically will vote for what they want versus what is right.
People will typically vote for what they want versus what is right.

K, first off, I am a libertarian, so I hate Europe. Next, What determines what is right isnt necessarily what you may believe. They arent necessarily stealing, but rather trying to push for equality. They are also trying to help to protect and care for themselves, but more importantly their fellow citizens by voting for things like universal healthcare. You also didnt address the middle and upper class people that vote for democrats or republicans and they selfishly strip the rights off others in both cases. They are doing what they believe is right, not necessarily what will best serve their own interests. Thank you for this debate, Im sorry that I didnt make any huge arguments, but Ive been way too busy. I do really hate arguing against my belief, but its good for me.
Public Displays of Affection are Immoral

Dear, this is serious. Can't you act like it for once in your life? 1.) Yes, that's why we're having this talk... I wish you'd listen to me more often. 2.) I'm sure our friends and my family would say otherwise. 3.) Are you breaking up with me??? What the hell... You can't handle a serious talk, so you just run away? Wow, REAL mature. Jesus, this is what I get for thinking you'd mature sooner or later. You know what? Fine. Get out. I'll mail you your stuff. Bitch.
Public Displays of Affection are Immoral

Mfw I expected an actual debate on this subject :/1. Licking faces is weird.2. I deny and disavow this.3. Bailey's the only babe for me. Sorry :'(Also, public displays of affection are super-duper cute. People holding hands, sharing a bond with each other, being true people in a sea of faces--is that not the fulfillment of human purpose?
Public Displays of Affection are Immoral

Babe, we've got to talk. You seem to think that it's okay to say things like "You're the super duper best, sugar" when we're at formal dinners. You love to pinch my cheeks when we're at the mall. Last Thanksgiving you *licked my face* in front of my parents! Now, dear, I'm not saying that I don't appreciate how much you love me. I know you do. You have the best intentions. I just don't think you realise how embarrasing these things are, sometimes. Can you tone it down a bit?
We would be better off without Obama

Actually Obama is literally the savior of the world. As I've proven, my opponent is clearly racist for not recognizing black superiority to whites.Now my opponent brings up the argument that my examples are characters of fiction. I might as well just claim that Obama is fiction making this debate null and void.We all know that Legos exist, and there is a Lego set that had this real life adventure that got made into the Lego movie.We all agree Iron Man is real.We can also agree that the Doctor is real. I hereby provide several pictures of him. Does that make it clear enough?I think I win.Vote for me.Thanks for reading.Kthxbai
We would be better off without Obama

Fox News got it right! At least for a time. Se, Obama BS'd himself into changing into a white guy. Then he realized his BS was BS and changed himself back to his black self to match the BS job he's done in the presidency. Otherwise it would be a white guy doing a terrible job. And as we all know, that it a logical contradiction and can't exist since white guys are awesome at business and politics. So Obama saw this and changed back to his real skin color in order to match the quality of his presidency. And by the way, those are all fictional characters. Except for maybe Iron Man. But as we all know, he doesn't have the good qualities to be a messiah since he is a greedy scum. Just watch Iron Man 2 and you'll see. So therefore, Obama is black, Obama is immoral, and cannot be the messiah as he's black and his blackness is tainting the whiteness of the White House.
We would be better off without Obama

Wow, my opponent fell for it. He really actually truly fell for it. Fox News posted this picture on their page for literally five and a half minutes to make fun of Obama, then they were censored by [only viewable to DDO Gold Members]. However, there was enough time for ten people to copy this picture and post it elsewhere. This included Clint Eastwood, Ted Cruz, three anonymous members of the KKK, some Neo-nazi I know, Matt Walsh, Glenn Beck, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Chuck Norris (Chuck Norris saved the picture and posted it on 18,000 different sites just by roundhouse kicking his keyboard). Also, regarding the people I mentioned as being messiahs, I can at least claim the last person, The Doctor has saved earth without dying. Like a million times. Also, the people in the Lego Movie saved an entire world without dying. And working back up to the top, Iron Man has saved the world like four times. Are there any questions? Good, so I can argue that Obama is definitely the Messiah who is here to release the human race into a period of joy and peace. Kthxbai.
We would be better off without Obama

These guys would be messiahs if they saved all of mankind. And if they did save all of mankind, they would have to all die as a symbol of them saving mankind. Therefore my opponent's argument is invalid and it only furthers the notion that we Obama should die in some way. And about Obama being black and awesome. Did anyone happen to hear about his latest bout of insecurity? Apparently, Bammy decided to pull a Michael Jackson to match his political position. How sad! Look here at how this fool tries so desperately to change himself to match his status in society and politics! There's a name for people like this, and it's called REVERSE OREO Look, he's just like an Oreo Cookie, except in reverse. White on the outside, but still black and evil on the inside. Personallly, I think he'd be a terrible tasting Oreo. Thinking that a reverse Oreo would taste bad is not racist. We would need to get rid of them, right? Why? Because it's just wrong. Therefore, I am clearly right and we would be better off without this Oreo perversion lingering around.
We would be better off without Obama

Woah, woah, woah, legs slow down.... Grab the wall.....Now, anyway, my opponent is basically saying Obama isn't our messiah because he isn't dead. I'm pretty sure there are a few people who saved a lot of people without dying though.Let me see if I can think of any............................ . . . . . . . . Hold on I still need time to think... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hold on... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Got nothing. Moving onto my next point of contention, Obama is like black and stuff. That means he beats people by societal and physical default. Like black people are just awesome. You have an all black basketball team against an all white basketball team. Who are you expecting to win? Obviously the all black team. You have an all black president vs an all white president? All black all the way. So my opponent is clearly racist for not understanding black superiority to trashy white people. Vote for me everyone!
We would be better off without Obama

My case is built entirely on how the Bamster is not the savior of the human race and that we'd be better off without him. I'll start on how he's not the messiah. Obama hasn't died yet and hasn't shown any signs of going. As demonstrated by Jesus, if one were to be a savior of the human race, he'd have to die a horrible death. I haven't heard of Obama dying, have you? And I also haven't heard him prophesying of his death. If he were the messiah, it'd only be logical to make him die in some horrible way. Maybe nail him to the top of the White (Now known as the Black) House? Even if he was the messiah, he'd still be dead and would no longer be active in spreading his plague of liberalism. And to go with that, he has ruined a perfect line of all-white presidents. Look at the pictures of all the previous 43 presidents in history. Do you see a black one in there? I think not! Thanks to him, they're probably going to rename the White House to the Black House. http://ts4.mm.bing.net... Just look at this picture! The color contrast between the White House and Obama is just unholy... Either he goes or it goes, and I want to keep the White House. If Obama were the messiah, he should prove it by sending a plague to wipe out all black people. But then he would be dead, too. So that would make a paradox. See, this is why we'd be better off without him! If he hadn't existed, we wouldn't be having this intellectually straining discussion and I wouldn't have used that awful paradox and fallacy. It was all his fault and his fault only. So therefore, I conclude that we would be better off without Obama. I turn the floor over to thee, blasphemer of righteousness!
The death penalty should be unconstitutional

So you want to make an example? for some reason, I don't seem to remember that having the intended effect in history often enough for me to agree. I do not think crime will drop, crime will stay at almost the same place as it is, and I didn't even get into the economics part, where the death penalty costs more than to make those people spend the rest of their lives in prison. If killing a person is justified by that person killing, then wouldn't that mean the killers of the killer should be killed, they rid the world of life, the same thing the person was killed for. it just creates a cycle of killing that won't ever stop. what if they find out someone was innocent after they already kill him? there's nothing they can do.
Crew the best sport

//We all know perfection isn't possible that makes it a constant battle on your mind to think about what your doing and how to improve. // Every single sport has that element trying for perfection. My point to you is that crew has that element much less than more complicated team sports, such as baseball, football, basketball, soccer etc. In conclusion, I agree that crew is a physically and mentally beneficial sport. However, it is not "one of the most beneficial sports for your body that you could possibly engage in. "
Crew the best sport

Crew is one of the most mental sports you could participate in. You have to think about what everybody else in the boat is doing then try and row perfectly with them. Everybody relies on each other in the boat to be successful. So many things can go wrong to throw the boat off. For example, keeping keel, dipping your hands, rushing, digging, catching early/late etc. Another way that you are challenged mentally is on the rowing machine or erg we practice on. When your on the erg your mind is screaming at you to stop and give up but you keep pressing on. If you have never done crew this paragraph is probably gibberish to you.
These Arguments Against the God of Christianity Are Valid - 1A.

Let me start by saying I am in no way a Christian and have found my own reasons for not believing, but the ones you have listed aren't among mine, so I accepted the debate. 1. I'll give the more christian response first. The Garden of Eden and the fall of man account for all of these things. Man held in his grasp the very scenario you discuss, but betrayed God and is forced to live on this earth. That would be a reason for suffering within the Christian paradigm. A more objective reason is one of comparability. Without suffering, it has been argued, people would not experience pleasure, or at least, not to the degree they do. For instance, when I look at my life compared to Bill Gates I am much less pleased than when I compare my situation with someone in Darfur. As far as viruses and such, the above reason would apply, but the omnipotence of God could explain some type of long run benefit, like population control, just as an example. NON BELIEF 1. There is a stipulation to this claim I will discuss below 2. granted based on omnipotence 3. Sounds like a selfish God, not at all like the compassionate one the New Testament describes. How do we know this is God's utmost desire? 4. Again, sounds like a selfish God that doesn't weigh consequences FREE WILL This applies to both of your arguements, so I addressed it here. There is a sense of lacking in ordering people to love you. Much in the same way, being loved by someone who has decided to love you independently of your own will for them to do so is much more valuable. Certainly, an omnipotent God would recognize this. Love requires free will. Any Christian teaching will tell you that it is not enough to simply acknowledge God's existence, but to love/worship him. Satan realizes God's existence, but certainly doesn't love him. So, this begs the question, why doesn't God reveal himself to us and then let us determine whether or not to love him? This introduces the concept of faith. Faith steps outside the realm of reason. It takes a leap of faith in order to believe in God. According to Christian teachings, people who have enough faith in God's existence in order to take that leap and believe in him wholeheartedly are the ones worthy of his love etc. If God simply revealed himself to us, our relationship with him, though still subordinate, would turn to an ordinary one that we have with other people; deciding whether or not we like God based on his actions etc. Without revealing himself to us, he forces us to decide for ourselves whether or not to believe in him, creating a much more valuable relationship. Thanks for posting this debate. Looking forward to hearing your reply.
These Arguments Against the God of Christianity Are Valid - 1A.

*NOTE* - The "1A" notation is for searching/browsing purposes. I hope to have more of these debates. The resolution is simple and brief: I am here to argue that the God of the Bible and thus the teaching of Christianity does not exist, i.e. has no solid evidence for it's existence. Common attributes given to this God is omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence , omnipresence, and many others. These 4 "omni-attributes", however, is what I will be focusing upon. =====Arguments===== For this debate I will be utilizing two popular arguments: the Argument from Evil and the Argument from Non-Belief. 1. Argument from Evil If an all-loving God+exists,+then+why+does+evil+and+suffering+exist+in+the+world?+Christians+commonly+use+free+will+as+an+excuse+for+the+evil+in+the+world.+But+then,+the+burden+is+placed+on+my+opponent+to+show+why+God+would+prefer+us+having+free+will+rather+than+us+not+having+free+will,+or+having+free+will+with+moral+perfection.+Secondly,+the+Christian+has+to+somehow+account+for+natural+disasters+that+cause+millions+of+deaths,+tons+of+parasites+that+feed+on+humans,+and+of+course+bacteria+and+viruses.+While+some+bacterias+and+viruses+are+human-made+or+proliferated,+it's+foolish+to+say+every+virus+and+bacteria+does.+So+what+of+the+virus+that+kills+an+infant+in+4+months?+2.+Argument+from+Non-Belief I+will+paste+the+syllogism+that+Theodore+Drange[1]+formulated,+based+on+J.L.+Schellenberg's+original+formation+of+this+argument: 1.+If+God+exists,+God: 1.+wants+all+humans+to+believe+God+exists+before+they+die; 2.+can+bring+about+a+situation+in+which+all+humans+believe+God+exists+before+they+die; 3.+does+not+want+anything+that+would+conflict+with+and+be+at+least+as+important+as+its+desire+for+all+humans+to+believe+God+exists+before+they+die;+and 4.+always+acts+in+accordance+with+what+it+most+wants. 2.+If+God+exists,+all+humans+would+believe+so+before+they+die+(from+1). 3.+But+not+all+humans+believe+God+exists+before+they+die. 4.+Therefore,+God+does+not+exist+(from+2+and+3). =====Conclusion===== With+both+my+arguments+laid+out,+I+await+my+opponent's+rebuttal.+---References--- 1.+http://www.infidels.org...
Abortion should be legal

My point on it being a rare exception, is that all laws have exceptions. Therefore, if we were debating "Murder should be legal", the argument about self-defense would be irrelevant. Since my opponent seems to concede, at least for this debate, that "(i) The foetus is living; (ii) The foetus is human; [and] (iii) Killing the foetus is murder", his self defense argument fails. In conceding this my opponent also makes my contention for me. The definition of abortion we agreed on was not for the purpose of a semantic argument. Since "abortion" can apply to any termination of pregnancy, even a C-section, or a "spontaneous abortion" like a miscarriage, in which case, neither of us, I believe would argue should result in an arrest.
Abortion should be legal

My opponent seems to be hanging his argument to keep abortion legal on a commonly agreed upon exception to the laws banning abortion. His argument fails for two reasons. 1. We don't make laws based on rare exceptions. To do so would be absurd. For instance, that lethal force is permitted to defend yourself against an attacker, doesn't mean lethal force should be allowed for all other purposes, like keeping the neighbors poodle out of your rose garden (I hate that dog). Abortions for medical reasons are rare. Less than 4% of all abortions are perform for any medical reason, life-threatening or not. [1] 2. My opponent stated very clearly that this was a reinstatement of our previous debate. If he will recall we agreed on the definition of abortion for the purposes of debate as "The intentional termination of a pregnancy by surgical procedure in which the death of the fetus is an intended result."[2] Since in this type of abortion the intended result is not the death of the fetus but the health of the mother, this does not fit the definition. Sources 1. 1. Lawrence B. Finer, Lori F. Frowirth, Lindsay A. Dauphinee, Susheela Singh, and Ann M. Moore, "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives," Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 37, no. 3 (September 2005): 110"18. 2. http://www.debate.org...
Abortion should be legal

The resolution is whether abortion should be legal or not. I will give one example of why abortion should be legal, and if I do not receive a concession; I will introduce a second contention in round two. ((Yes, I'm that confident! )) Contention One: Maternal DeathsMaternal deaths are when the death of the mother will occur while pregnant. Often, if the pregnancy is allowed to be continued - the mother will die. However, if an abortion is carried out, the mother will live. This can happen, in the case of eclampsia or infections[1]So, allow me to present Con with two scenarios:1) In scenario one, the act of abortion is illegal and thus, the pregnancy cannot be terminated early. As a result, the mother dies. Also, due to the lack of almost everything for the child, the child will die as well. Con would present a case - willing or no - where this hideous scenario could play out.2) Now for another scenario, the one I'm for, where abortion is legal. To everyone's sadness, the foetus will die due to the termination of the pregnancy. HOWEVER, the mother might still live. Therefore, in all likelihood, we have only lost one life. It is important to recognise that in both scenarios, the foetus will die. This is unavoidable and thus, objectively speaking, irrelevant. What is relevant? The life of the mother. In the case I am presenting, I give this mother a chance to live. In Con's case, we have a dead mother on our hands because abortion would be illegal. I would ask Con to justify why abortion should be illegal even though the foetus dies either way. I do not see abortion as killing a child in all cases; I see abortion as saving a mother. ((I am not suggesting at all that Con wants this kind of thing to play out; I am merely demonstrating that the case Con is debating for - illegal abortion - it will play out. ))It is possible that Con accepts abortion to be legal under these circumstances. If that is the case, Con has conceded this debate, because the stance Con is taking "Abortion should be illegal" has no asterisks attached to it and nothing the rules changed this. I will eagerly await my opponent's response(s)! Until next round! Source(s):[1]WHO report, 2005
Abortion should be legal

Welcome, everyone!This is a reinstatement of a debate I did with my opponent, Weiler, which ended in nothingness, essentially. So, I hope to rectify this fact in this debate. A re-match, if you will!The resolution is: Abortion should be legal. Weiler will take the Con position on this resolution. I should hope we are good enough to be able to get past semantics and thus not need to define it. If my opponent would prefer I define it, however, I would ask him to post a comment. So, onto the rules:1) The burden of proof will be on Pro and Con to show why abortion should be legal and illegal, respectively.2) There can be no "Vote Pro" or "Vote Con" at the end of the debate unless one of the debaters conceded.3) A forfeit of a round will be an automatic loss of conduct; a forfeit of a round will only be an automatic loss of conduct.4) The first round can be for acceptance only. If that is the case then the debate shall continue normally. If my opponent wishes to use the first round for opening contention(s), however, then Weiler must put - and only put - "No argument posted here as agreed" for his round three post. I believe that's all, so if anyone has any questions, please feel free to post a comment! Good luck to Weiler et al. Allez!
The character, Patrick, should be removed from the show "Spongebob Squarepants."

Blah blah blah!! Patrick makes sponge bob funny and if the parents don't like their child/children watching it Then TURN IT OFF!! No need to kick him off!! He is hilarious! If you want to kick him out then let me explain this in a way you can understands You-are-a-idiot-if-you-want-to-kick-him-off!!!