BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Organ/Fetal tissue donation

Yes, organ transplants do save many lives but are they are ethical as they seem? Recipients may seem to be getting one more chance at life but, health problems may be in the future with the medicines involved. According to web.md organ transplants can be damaged severely with the post-transplant medicine. High-cholesterol is already a possibility way to damage the organs, but with the combinations of medicine that are used to control the immune system it"s an even greater possibility to destroy the organs. Post-transplant medicine can also cause gouts which is originally caused by the build up of uric acid in the blood. Over all depression is a huge side effect of the surgery, people who have a transplanted organ have gone through plenty of nerve racking experiences to scar them mentally. Post-transplant medicine will add on to the overall depression and anxiety.
"unlimited paradox" - an ever present unlimited force doesnt exist

con has pretty much dropped his past arguments and has moved on. con argues the unlimited can make itself look limited. this isn't however actually limiting itself as the questions asked. also, the example con gave is not even making itself look limited. he shows sraight lines that are suppose to look crooked. first i don't know how what he says is true that they are paraellel. also, even if they were, it doesnt prove itself as an example of an unlimited entity.
Resolved: Race is a better predictor of personal happiness than intelligence.

I have recently received some a priori details, that this debate was some kind of troll event, hence the debacle. "Stop this at once, it's silly! It's very silly indeed. No one enjoys a good laugh more than me, except my wife, and also may be Captain Perkins. . Come to think of it, most people appreciate a good laugh more than me. Nevertheless, I am warning this site not to become silly again. " - Monty Python (sic) So, while I would advise no one be so sensitive they cannot laugh at themselves, their misfortunes and the occasional prank, I am compelled to be more critical of the event this debate rejoinders to, and specifically the resolutions. My opponent shared with me in a private message that this event was some kind of. "outlaw tournament" debate, with the aim of trolling on debaters. That's all well and good, but the topics are not up to muster even as a piece of humor. My opponents message said this was not even the original resolution, it was in fact: "It is better to be white and dumb than black and stupid". His entire message is below. The objective is just to troll, and the winners are the best trolls. We were given resolutions to work with (and some leeway on how to word them). The original resolution I was given was "It is better to be white and dumb than black and stupid". This is a disgusting threshold for humor and disrespectful of the institution of debate going all the way back to Socrates. SHAME SHAME SHAME! !! We do humorous debates in collegiate environs from time to time, resolutions are more along the lines of, "This house would turn the clock back to the eighties. " Sometimes they are character debates for students that have a higher interest in acting to portray familiar characters, historical figures and celebrities during the round. For example: "Indiana Jones and Luke Skywalker vs Elmo from Sesame Street and Mary Crawley from Downton Abbey. " might debate; "This USFG should investigate the X-files. " This event offered here does not live up to even the standard set in humorous debate events in the academic tradition. What's worse, is it seems to make a joke of racism. This is completely unacceptable. If you were my students and this were something more akin to reality we would be having a serious discussion about you remaining in school. You would definitely be on the bus home from the event our squad was competing in. SHAME SHAME SHAME on the trolls and most to the person that though such a vile resolution is a decent joke. Racism is real, we don't live in a post racial culture yet, and this is all the proof anyone needs.
Resolved: Race is a better predictor of personal happiness than intelligence.

In addressing Con"s arguments, we must first dispel once and for all with the fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he is doing; he knows exactly what he is doing. Barack Obama is undertaking a systematic effort to change this country, to make America more like the rest of the world... it is a systematic effort to change America. With that out of the way, let"s take a look at my opponent"s arguments. Most striking is his assertion that I did not lay out a case. "New phone who dis" is a perfectly comprehensive and thoroughly intricate analysis of the phase-racial nature of societies today which lends itself to inter- and intra-societal communication assuming the model of perhaps disgust, perhaps a cold indifference to those of other races today. To extricate the point in less demi-rhetorical verbiage: "New phone": The new phase-racial nature of societies has led to a shift in the ways in which ethnicity affects mentality. "Who dis": This shift is one toward exclusion and destruction. Clearly, the claim that I did not lay out a solid case is objectively false. Let"s move on to Con"s critique, and this shall be further demonstrated. He warns against analyzing people on the basis of race rather than other factors, as it lends itself to inherently racist thinking. This critique in itself requires a critique because it suggests that collectively pleading ignorance to the issues of racial discrimination in our day by pretending it does not exist, much like ignoring my love life does not make it a good love life. If we cannot analyze the relationship between race and living standards in a society, we cannot identify and consequently cannot easily fix the race-related issues in our society; we could never successfully identify Ted Cruz as the Zodiac Killer if not for our attention as a society to serial killers. As proof of this, let"s look at Japan. Japan is one of the most homogenous nations in the world; as of the 90"s, it was 98.5% ethnically Japanese (1). It may also be one of the most xenophobic (2, 3, 4). Because the number of foreigners is so small, many Japanese pay no mind to this or may not even realize the existence of the problem (4). Therefore, it is not only not racist, but is also socially necessary to analyze the effects of race. Sources: 1. https://www.cia.gov... 2. http://www.economist.com... 3. http://thediplomat.com... 4. http://www.japantoday.com...
Resolved: Race is a better predictor of personal happiness than intelligence.

It appears that this debate may have been scuttled by technology or miscommunication, especially after reviewing the limited, "scope of analysis" provided by my opponent during this round of argumentation. Nevertheless, the spirit of debate demands some level of analysis of the topic by at least one side. Moreover this resolution lends itself to an advocacy that we should caution against. In all fairness the Affirmative offered on advocacy. In fact they only offered a comment suggesting there was perhaps a new owner of the phone my opponent had been using to participate on this website. As such it would be inappropriate to level a full scale critique. What is more fitting is a preemptive word of caution, as the resolution suggests that it may be better to evaluate folks on a basis of race that another merit, in this case, intellect. It doubtful we need a recounting of the history of wrongs and atrocity that has followed from inherently racist thinking, or lengthy complaining about the vitriol we see in the United States lately leveled towards immigrants and foreigners. What we need is merely to remind ourselves of contemporary ethics and science: ethics that remind us that the western world has determined devaluing someone on the basis of race is inherently immoral and science that has robustly concluded that race is a social construct. Anyone doubting the later claim can refer to this user friendly article by the NY Times putting the science into lay terms. If further evidence is required I will provide it upon solicitation. After considering that race is merely a social construct, and reminding ourselves that racist thinking and social modelling are not just destructive and wrong, but has no basis in science. It it altogether reasonable to reject the resolution and move on to a topic more worthy of academic debate. Having reminded the audience of societal morals obtained by enduring the worst of human atrocity in the name of racism, as well as the science rejecting racism on top of the complete lack of argument by the affirmative, a negative ballot is strongly urged.
Resolved: Race is a better predictor of personal happiness than intelligence.

So, this is a devil's advocate debate of sorts; I want to explore life through the eyes of a SJW. That being said, I will still annihilate whoever takes this debate. BoP is shared. The resolution, put another way, means, "A person's race has more correlation with his/her own happiness than his/her intelligence does." Use common-sense definitions for each word (the definition of "common-sense" is up for debate). Con can either start arguing in Round 1, conclude in R3, and waive R4, or start in Round 2 and conclude in R4. Either's fine with me.
NASA is a dishonest organization

Since my opponent failed to explain why moon shadows are impossible, here is why it is possible: "The astronauts were taking their photos on a hilly, brightly-lit landscape while the sun was close to the horizon. Imagine taking a photograph of someone on a rolling, uneven field of snow during a full, low-hanging moon. The contours of the ground would produce shadows of many different lengths." http://www.space.com... (See number 7)
NASA is a dishonest organization

Welcome to Debate.org. The moon was not actually flapping in the wind. Rather, "The flag is held up by a horizontal bar and simply moves when it is unfurled and as the pole is being fixed into position by the astronauts. The flagpole is light, flexible aluminium and continues to vibrate after the astronauts let go, giving the impression of blowing in the wind." http://www.telegraph.co.uk... Why are shadows impossible?
equality for women in the military

The women of this country have earned the right to be equal to men. There is absolutely no good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to be in the special forces or anything else that is currently "closed" to women in the military. I think men are just afraid that the women are going to take their jobs or they are just scared that they will be out done by women . That's the only good explanation. Is this why men don't want women doing certain jobs in the military?
Religion is immoral

If religious people claimed to be as moral as they were, surely their people would not disobey the scripture. I thought in religion, scripture was one of the most highly held values in the belief system. Religion is not immoral because people are immoral. That is illogical. The simple fact is, whilst humans CAN be immoral without religious fuel, it is religion that gives them an excuse to do so. Extremist Muslims use the excuse of a martyr's heaven and 'infidels' as their flame for injustifiable violence. Christians in the Crusades were told by (ironically named) Pope Innocent the III to fight the Crusades if they also wanted to go into heaven. Religion is also the basis for a lot (not all) but a lot of wars. I've already touched on the Crusades (11 in total) but what about the current wars in the Middle East? ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda, all groups that have committed acts of terror IN THE NAME OF RELIGION. Finally, there is a distinct difference between pro-religious totalitatarian regimes and NON-religious totalitarian regimes: Pro-religious regimes actually USE religion as an excuse for it's genocide. In all of the Atheist regimes, religion has NEVER been the core reason for genocide. Mao Zedong wanted to reform China into it's Dynasty period and rid of all technologies. Stalin wanted to imprison all anti-Communists. Pol Pot wanted to restore Democratic Kampuchea to it's former glory by killing INTELLECTUALS AND FORMER POLITICAL RIVALS. In NONE of the above regimes has religion been a topic, or at least a MAIN topic, for genocide. Meanwhile, Hitler, the most well known and infamous tyrant of all genocidal history, was even quoted to have said: "To completely annihilate a nation, replace science with religion."
Religion is immoral

"Religious is immoral" is not a subjective moral statement but rather alludes to absolute morality. As an atheist you believe in evolution, an unguided naturalistic process, with the aim of survival of the fittest. Hence, morals are subjective. Hence, to what standard is religion amoral? The atheist worldview cannot make such absolute moral statements. People have committed atrocities in the name of religion such as the Christian crusades which killed Muslims in droves. Now the important distinction is not whether people do bad things in the name of religion, but do their actions conform with scripture or not. Hence, because Christians did amoral things in the name of Christ, does not mean Christianity is amoral, rather they disobeyed scripture instead of conforming to it. From your reasoning because religion had "violent outbursts" therefore religion is amoral. The same can be said for atheism. Do you wish to be held accountable for the atheistic regimes of Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung and the soviet union? Certainly not. Hence, religion is immoral in so far as people are born immoral. Religion does not have a monopoly on violence as demonstated throughout history.
Religion is immoral

For thousands of years, mankind has believed that religion is a righteuous and justifiable cause, and yet it isn't. The two biggest religions, Islam and Christianity, have both had extreme cases of violent outbursts, sometimes even resulting in death. I, as an atheist, wish to argue that religion, not only lacks morality, but is irrelevant in the 21st century.Anyone may enter this debate against me. I recommend a firm theist believer. Good luck, and happy 1st debate on my new account :)
Money or Dignity

It is not money that makes up happy nor gives us food. Money is only a currency that we have created to display how much we work by the time we have worked. That currency can be traded around. If it is not money that makes us happy what is it. It is simply the people around us. Take all the money from the world you have people take all the people from the world you have nothing. As you said donating makes you happy but it is never the money it is the act of giving. When you give someone money it is because you believe they need it. you would rather give the time you have worked displayed into money to some one who can't get a ride. know that they will get a ride because you have given makes you happy. (Im a college student that has been working for 2 years to get a car. last week i had $2,500 in my hands i was really happy to see that i had that much money in a physical form. Then i thought this is nothing but paper. The happiness crashed i wondered about this for a while. Why did all of it go away so quickly? Well i wanted a car now i have the money for it. Why do i need a car? To hang out with my friends. to not have to catch the bus super early to get somewhere on time. to work more. to help my friends that needed a ride, think about all of this made me happy. ) Its never the money that makes you happy its just what you can do with it.
Smoking ban in public areas

The main problem was how to make non-smokers comfortable and at the same time try to reduce a number of smokers. I am sure that somebody will listen to smoking ban and respect others. I think that this is very important to make non-smokers comfortable, because they are not guilty of this situation. I BELIEVE that by disallowing people who smoke from smoking in public, it will cause smokers to smoke less. Because smoking is not allowed in public, people can smoke in their homes instead. This would mean that as long as they are out of their homes: at work, when they eat out, at the movies or even at the parks, they cannot smoke. If smokers choose to quit or even think of quitting because of the inconvenience of not being able to smoke in public, would it not, more so, prevent a non-smoker from smoking? If people won't be able to smoke at their work and they would have to wait every time to get home. Wouldn't that be ridiculous? That MAY stop some of the people to smoke. I think that if people won't smoke in public areas that would get non-smoker life's easier and much better. We could take children for example. I think that they have to cover their mouth and nose not to breath in the smoke which is irritating. In addition I would also like to POINT out that smoking ban can help public places be less toxic and polluted. Nowadays people don't really care about others. Although everybody knows an obvious etiquette not to smoke when surrounded by many people, a large number of smokers don't seem to care so much about it. Yes, I COMPLETELY agree with the fact that everyone has the right to smoke, but what they don't have the right to do is to inflict the dangers onto us who have taken the free choice not to. Passive smoking is enough to give someone COPD, Lung Cancer and Heart Disease, so why should we suffer because you want to practise a disgusting habit? Smoking SHOULD be banned in public areas, because it cause many problems for non-smokers and the environment.
Smoking ban in public areas

Heart disease, bronchitis and lung cancer. That is what smokers try to avoid from day to day. Recent research has shown that non-smokers can suffer health problems if they spend long periods of time among people who do smoke. I think the world would be a better place without cigarettes. According to the Manitoba Medical Association it is known that the smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, 50 of which are known to be cancer-related. Also smoke has been linked to heart and respiratory disease; lung, breast, cervical, and nasal sinus cancers; strokes and miscarriages. In children, dangers include sudden infant death syndrome, fetal growth impairment, bronchitis, pneumonia, asthma and middle-ear disease. Not permitting smoking in public areas may help people refrain from smoking. Some argue that there would be a significant decline in the clientele in bars and clubs, but non-smokers actually outnumber smokers three to one. A ban could actually increase people going out because nonsmokers would be more comfortable. There may also be a sudden realization of the dangers of smoking. With the state government taking a stand, it may cause people to take another look at the situation. Smoking kills 7,000 New Yorkers a year. The number of smokers has dropped since 2002, but the decline has leveled up. The people that sell cigarettes should be ashamed by the fact that they find an excuse for it as a having a job. But that else can be the solution if not limiting people? How much money do they spend on buying cigarettes? A smoker will spend about $1,400 a year for one pack a day. I find this as a chance to buy something valuable instead of harming yourself and others. It is known that if you do not display the cigarettes the number of young people who smoke will immediately, because they buy cigarettes on impulse.
Smoking ban in public areas

My opponent's initial argument is certainly an idea, but it's not a solution. It hinges on the statement that banning smoking in public areas will reduce the number of smokers in the world and increase overall health of the human population. While everyone needs to agree that smoking is unhealthy, the carcinogenic properties of tar mutating DNA to drastically increase one's chances of cancer, the former part of the argument is not a tenable position. This is because banning smoking in public areas will not reduce the number of smokers, for a variety of reasons. This comes done to something statisticians learned during the prohibition (USA, '20-'33), and many countries still witness around the decision to legalize or not legalize drugs of many kinds: if someone wants something enough, prevent them from doing it. In fact, in many cases it will happen more. This, however, would be a valid argument towards banning smoking entirely- if we're talking about just banning it in public areas then there is even less of an argument to have, because smokers will just smoke in non-public areas. The only change we would see is smokers moving indoors, which is much, much more hazardous for health (imagine the families, especially children, of these smokers). There are many solutions to smoking and smoking addictions, but banning it from happening and telling addicted people "you just can't do this anymore" is definitely not one of them.
The Bible Contains Scientific Errors

I challenge you to this resolution because you said you wanted to debate this a while back. Full Resolution: The Bible contains scientific errors. Definitions: The Bible: The Bible agreed upon by my opponent. Contains: Has inside. Scientific Errors: Statements that contradict science facts or accepted theories (for example evolution). Rules: 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed. 3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. 4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed from all moments after the debate has been formalized. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.
Legal Abortion

Abortion prevents dictatorship. Let me show you:1. Saving life is heteronormative.2. Heteronormativity excludes the queer and makes the queer "other"3. Otherness causes conflict and dictatorships.THEREFORE, a lack of abortion causes dictatorships.I am pro-death and pro-murder. If a criminalisation of drugs makes the drug users queer then I say to decriminalise.You are just saying that murder should not be allowed ... okay, but outlawing murder is heteronormative and leads to conflict and violence and bad stuff that is said to be bad with evidence other than just your own blinded opinion. You didn't offer a reason that we should not have abortion beyond saying it is murder ... I turned your case saying that "murder" is good!You provide absolutely no reasons to vote con beyond saying murder is bad and abortion is murder. I say that abortion is good for the very same reason - but I have actual reasons (cited evidence, whereas you did not).I call the blind man a liar when he is as much of one as me. He swears he can see the colors and the trees; I say I can see reality.
Legal Abortion

I have refuted your whole case... Your case stands around legalizing the murder of innocent babies to prevent a dictatorship... You are arguing the wrong case... And if you have already stated that abortion is murder, yet you are trying to argue that abortion should be legal, then you are trying to argue that murder should be legal... Murder should not he legal under any circumstances... And on your point of "criminalizing abortion will create a dictatorship" how on earth is saving the lives of thousands of children gonna overthrow our whole government system? And my point about the drugs is this: if we make drugs illegal then we aren't accepting those who use them... Therefore making them the "queer"... If we do not legalize all drugs and accept those people then we will create a dictatorship... I was merely using an example to show how flawed your argument is.