BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Democracy is not an effective ideology in producing a successful society.

Let me start out by saying that I am very pleased with the response my debate has received. All of my opponents arguments are true. In response to my opponents points. Every ideology and every society oppresses minorities, for the most part and helps to justify immoral acts. Democracy does indeed oppress the least number of people and it does hand morality over to the people more so than other types of societies. "In a Democracy, everyone's voice is heard and everyone gets a say in how things should go. I don't believe there is a more efficient system that satisfies my opponent's criteria." Agreed. Now to clarify my stance: 1. I define a successful society in terms of the morality of it's people. This is depicted by the societies policies and acts. This, of course implies that we are working under the idea that absolute or some form of absolute morality exists. In other words, generally speaking, what's right is right and what's wrong is wrong, regardless of people's preferences. 2. "Give an example of an ideology that is more effective than democracy" In response to this, I don't have one. I am not debating the existence of a more effective, or better ideology, I am merely criticising the ideology of democracy. 3. Explain why this is the case. Obviously I can't answer this because I don't have a better ideology for you. Since I agree with your points let me present some more of my own. Just because democracy represents the majority doesn't make it good and it certainly doesn't make it ideal. Democracy works to suppress the ideas of the minority, which often times are more moral and just plain better than the majority. Some examples of the majority suppressing a minority who is morally right... Gay Rights Separation of Church and State- the word God in the pledge and on money AND polygamy being illegal When deciding what is moraly right and wrong, and the bases of most of my argument is Mill's harm principle. And the basic idea of not violating human rights.
Democracy is not an effective ideology in producing a successful society.

My opponent is arguing that Democracy is not an effective ideology in producing a successful society. She backs this argument up with the following points: 1. Democracy oppresses the minority 2. Democracy oppresses moral acts 3. Democracy justifies immoral acts. I would argue that every ideology and every society does the preceding to some extent. In my opinion however, Democracy oppresses the least people and hands morality over to the people more so than other types of societies. In a Democracy, everyone's voice is heard and everyone gets a say in how things should go. I don't believe there is a more efficient system that satisfies my opponent's criteria. I invite my opponent to respond to my points and to do also the following: 1. Define a successful society 2. Give an example of an ideology that is more effective than democracy 3. Explain why this is the case.
The US needs to strengthen border security

Border security is made up of more that just the physical barriers between two countries. Pro is focusing his argument on the physical barriers between the US and Canada and Mexico respectively and argues that the Mexican border, clearly defined by fences, is the ideal. Despite the physical barriers the Mexican border is still a hot spot for illegal activities such as drug, gun and people smuggling. Over the last 14 years over a 170 tunnels of varying sizes connecting Mexico to the US have been discovered with many more coming to light such as the almost complete San Diego tunnel at an estimated cost of 3 million. The presence of these tunnels as well as an overall increase of Mexican cartel activity indicates that a physical barrier does little to deter illegal border activity. Instead of being put off by it, smugglers merely come up with creative ways to avoid it and gain further power over their 'employees'. On the other hand only one such tunnel has been found on the US-Canadian border, a border 3 times as big and with no one physical barrier defining it. While the Canada border is by no means perfect, both countries have been working on making it more secure by implementing measures such as the 2010 "Beyond the Border" agreement. To conclude, instead of physically strengthening its borders which hasn't proved all that conducive, I would argue that the US needs to focus on establishing better relationships with border controls on either side and re-examine policies in order to decrease detrimental activities and increase the security of its people, a security which cannot be achieved through fences alone.
The US needs to strengthen border security

First, let's take a look at the current American-Canadian "border" Oh, look, it almost exists! You can barely tell where America ends and Canada starts! How is such a small, pathetic border supposed to keep those dirty Canadians out of America? It can't. It is commonly known that the one and only official language in Canada is French, which in itself should convince you these diseases should stay out of the US. In case you aren't aware why, French is basically the opposite of freedom, which is why freedom fries and freedom toast are so much better than french fries and french toast. If you want to see a good border, look at the marvelous American-Mexican border! Pure beauty. No one looks at this and says " that's one country with a line through it". THIS is a perfect border, and should not be changed in any way.
white people are stupid

Lol, pretty good meme I must say, I'll continue the argument because why not Firstly, the link you provided was just an irrelevant power point with no scientific or sociological value to it, just a conglomeration of meaningless questions and baseless assumptions. You claim to be working at NASA, and have a high-school degree in science and sociology, yet you have the grammar and spelling of 6 year old. You criticize me for not being the smart one, yer you provide no logical or reasonable argument, nor do you back up your criticisms or even address my previous point, you are only skilled in your incompetence and ineptitude.
white people are stupid

im not a racist sir. i am half white, mexican, and danish so HOP OFF! i studied at NASA for 3 months and we do aloot of good reaserch. im pretty sure im right because i have a high school degree in science and sociology, im taking the classes now ask anyone. anyways im studying a lot right now and i dont have enough time for youre wrong opinion on this. im a scientist and sociologist and youre just a little kid so back away from my debates because yourent educated enough for me to argue with. toodle doo! .ps. here is the link to where i got this infromation https://docs.google.com... .p.ps. youre mommas so dumb you have to use internet to find info, im such a smarty pants that i have an encyclopedia inside of my head that gives me any information i need, so bAM i won. also this isnt a meme its a debate smart one.
white people are stupid

Ok, ok, hold on chaps. Firstly, this response will assume that you are in fact being serious (I kinda know that you aren't) but for the sake of a good argument I will respond in a willfully ignorant manner, (to improve the meme). Firstly, to address the logical inconsistencies and lack of evidence in your argument, I posit thus: 'scientifically proven that the average white persons brain is 6x smaller than any other race' Where is this supposed study that you base your entire argument off of? Link the study so I am able to actually examine whether or not it's a legitimate piece of research. To assume that the entirety of a race is less intelligent is absurd, you haven't taken into consideration: Education, social-class, wealth, living conditions, genetics or where that individual lives. IF, and this is a big if, you are being serious then this is no different from stating that 'all black people are criminals' or 'all immigrants live off of benefits', it is hypocritical and nonsensical. Secondly, you state that "every white person you have met are just like their sweet trumpimple president!". This makes no sense, it's grammar is way off and you aren't making a valid rational point. Also, this is entirely anecdotal, just because every white person YOU have met is stupid, it doesn't mean that the entire race of over a billion people can be attributed with a characteristic that is assumed of a small minority. This is the precise form of 'rational' reasoning that SJWs and feminists rely on, 'I meet a tiny minority of a gender or race, therefore that entire gender or race meets my definitions and opinions of the minority that I encounter'. Your argument isn't correct, and is in fact racist: White people do not have an inferior intelligence, and are in fact above average in terms of national averages. The difference is mainly genetic (as the studies below suggest), thus it is dependent upon the parents, not inherently upon the race itself, thus an entire race is not inherently less intelligent than other, your argument is purely stupid, irrational assumptions. If you are white, then you are proving your own point, but if you belong to another race you are in fact making a racist assumption based off of irrational, anecdotal assumptions and one, un-verified scientific study. If whites are 'less intelligent', then the achievements of Newton, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Darwin and Shakespeare are all particular rarities, although they are not. Of all the notable scientific, philosophical, and literary achievements over the past few centuries, almost all have been white, thus proving that whites are indeed capable of being as intelligent, if not more, than other races. (Sorry for the short length, couldn't be bothered to write more as this is just a meme) Sources used: https://www2.le.ac.uk... https://www.news-medical.net... http://aristocratsofthesoul.com...
Big Bang is a big phoney

...Take one down, put one back up, ninety-nine bottles of beer on the wall... Ninety-nine bottles of beer on the wall, ninety-nine bottles of beer... Take one down, put one back up, ninety-nine bottles of beer on the wall... Ninety-nine bottles of beer on the wall, ninety-nine bottles of beer... Take one down, put one back up, ninety-nine bottles of beer on the wall...
Big Bang is a big phoney

Ninety-nine bottles of beer on the wall, ninety-nine bottles of beer... Take one down, put one back up, ninety-nine bottles of beer on the wall... Ninety-nine bottles of beer on the wall, ninety-nine bottles of beer... Take one down, put one back up, ninety-nine bottles of beer on the wall... Ninety-nine bottles of beer on the wall, ninety-nine bottles of beer... Take one down, put one back up, ninety-nine bottles of beer on the wall...
Big Bang is a big phoney

I was challenged to this debate, probably a bit after I labeled all creationist arguments as not worth the digital space on the internet. I was about to shoot this debate down but I think I'll actually take it. I'm not going to put a lot of effort into this. Here, have a link. It's the EXACT answer to your Kent Hovind brand argument-in-a-can. http://www.talkorigins.org... Above is a complete disproof. I will now explain the argument provided in the link. 1a. Physics can't really apply in a black and white manner here. Why? because the big bang is an expansion of space, not a giant explosion where there is a calculatable result 1b. Another argument is not just the spin of planets, but the spin of galaxies. Galaxies formed *after* the big bang when things started to settle down, hence, we can expect random spins. 1c. Conservation of angular momentum does not mean all things have to spin the same way. If two spinning things run into each other, they may start spinning in opposite directions. Backwards spinning planets can thus be accounted for given the size of the universe. 2. The author argues that even if the big bang were just an explosion, random spins of planets are to be expected because the pieces fly out spinning in different directions. A little addendum: Why would God make two planets spin differently from the others? For giggles?
World Government will Impede the Progress of Humanity

In conclusion, a world government will inhibit society’s progress by stifling competition. Power, when amassed into the hands of a few elite, will corrupt and the system of governance may turn into dictatorship. Economic and cultural divisions will separate the people of the world government, and cause internal conflicts. As my opponent has not provided an argument to how world government will not impede human progress, I urge a Pro vote.
World Government will Impede the Progress of Humanity

I believe instituting a world government will prove disadvantageous for human society. I will have the burden of proof. World government is the notion of a single common political authority for all of humanity. First round is acceptance. Second round is opening statement Third round is rebuttal. Fourth round is rebuttal and concluding argument. I have debated this before in the past, but my opponent forfeited. I might use some of my arguments in the past.
Are men sexist (yes/pro) or women sexist (no/con) [Who is more sexist to you?]

Did you read my explanation or just watch a completely illegitimate video that I just posted for you to see from my older argument? I posted that just for you to see what I was talking about before. Did you not see my newer argument? If you just think I'm sexist because of my older argument and did not take into context the words? Please read the words I did explain your argument. If you want to make another argument you can but if I'm just a lost cause just move on.
Are men sexist (yes/pro) or women sexist (no/con) [Who is more sexist to you?]

I'll keep this one short. While my opponent has done nothing to substantiate his claims about what women think of men, his willingness to generalize about all women and what they think is exactly proof of the kind of sexism we're talking about here, because that's sexist as hell. We're talking about an instigator who saw a youtube video of some craziness and took to the net to show how THIS proves women are more consistently sexist than men, itself an extremely sexist action. By contrast, I do not think all men are sexist (I certainly hope I'm not) and do not believe all women are either. What I CAN definitively show if I may belabor the point a bit, is that whatever sexism exists among the men who are largely in power has translated to a lack of women in power, which means it is, if not more frequent, is at least objectively more detrimental.
Are men sexist (yes/pro) or women sexist (no/con) [Who is more sexist to you?]

I did get crazy but if you want to see the video here is the link: http://www.youtube.com... : but the person that posted it did have some p*ssed off context in the beginning but he does have the video. I have seen no examples of men beating women other than sick BDSM (don't lookup), men that beat up on girls by dating them and dumping them like a game (though I don't know how often this occurs), and the internet (pedophiles; deranged porn addicts). Most men I see treat their girlfriends like Queens. I did read that like only 17 (published in 2013) women are at the top of countries out of like around ~200 countries and I'm aware of how their is few women at the top of high paying jobs and companies. But of course that is changing since technically the First Lady has a lot of power in the schools, and there is many examples of senators, judges, Supreme Court judges (not much since the max is 9 judges), representatives, et cetera. In the job department two things: 1. I am seeing alot of stay at home dads, [and] 2. Many men flunk out of schools; more than women. I believe that women show sexism because. . . They not only think as themselves as superior since they are smarter and more mature than us and they state it but they believe that us barbarians only play sports and beat each other up to gain superiority. That men are only used to do die in wars and lift heavy material. Otherwise they are useless other than chromosomes and sometimes becoming lovable gentleman.
Are men sexist (yes/pro) or women sexist (no/con) [Who is more sexist to you?]

So I'm a little leery of this argument because of how much my esteemed opponent has wandered in the opening paragraphs. Definitions and terms are not especially clear, but I'm going to do my best. The only evidence my opponent has provided to fulfill burden of proof is that they once saw a talk show in which a bunch of women were happy that a woman had dismembered her husband. I do not know if such a talk show segment exists, but if it does, I don't really see how it somehow proves that women as a rule are more sexist (or more frequently sexist? That's unclear too) than men. I can find countless examples of men cheering for women receiving horrible treatment at the hands of their boyfriends. Whole websites exist to further this. I would think the greater evidence of greater sexism lies in the vast disparities between men and women in social standing. Women make up disproportionately small numbers of elected officials, heads of companies, tenured academic faculty, Law Firm Partners, and Doctors within the specialties. If a greater sexism against women did not exist, I submit that these disparities would not exist. Even if sexism were somehow more expressed by women, and CON has given no evidence that it is, it clearly isn't holding men back the way that whatever sexism exists in society is burdening women. Over to you, CON.
Are men sexist (yes/pro) or women sexist (no/con) [Who is more sexist to you?]

I believe that women (not all) are more alleged to be sexist then men because after 200 hundred years of them getting rights it still seems like they want more. A female pope or arguments on how men are horrible and no-good cheaters and we are perverted rapists out to get innocent damsels. We degrade women because of our porn habits even though women watch it too. The only problems women have these days are that there isn't many women in politics calling the shots. I watched a video on youtube about some talk show supporting a woman that sawed off her husband's dick and put it in the garbage disposal in the sink because he wanted to divorce and I was completely horrified. I know, I know those talk show hosts don't represent all feminists and women but it still horrified me when one of the talk show hosts was like 'You wouldn't be acting this way if it was a girl's boobs' and one of the others was like 'No, it is different'. My thought is: Do women value equality or want to become the masters?
Islam is not a religion of peace

Just to make this clear, I am talking about Islam, not Muslims. Indeed, most Muslims are peaceful, but the religion is clearly not. Unfortunately, it almost seems as if the people of Britain are unable to express this view, for fear of being deemed "racist" After every single extremist Islamic terrorist attack it feels as if we are being subjected to a barrage of politicians and social media users declaring that "Islam is a religion of peace" Sadly, whilst the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, the religion encourages a significant minority of the Muslim population to commit acts of violence. I'm not just talking about acts of terrorism here, I'm talking about executions in Islamic countries and the suppression of women's rights as well.
Islam is not a religion of peace

Thanks for responding con and I will adhere to the conditions. Islam is a monotheistic religion, with Allah being the sole deity. Surely this requires the destruction and purging of all other Gods? Now please correct me if I am wrong (I am far from an expert on Islam, you are probably much more qualified to talk about this than I am) but isn't this implied in the Q'uran? 3:32 "Allah loveth not the disbelievers." 8:39 "Fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah." 28:86 "Never be a helper to the disbelievers." How can Islam be a religion of peace, if it seeks to purge the World of all other faiths? This has been reflected on numerous occassions. I include one such occassion here. In October 2015, churches were attacked in Aceh, in Indonesia and one man was killed by a group of a hundred Muslim men. http://www.bbc.co.uk... Perhaps another problem associated with Islam is the use of capital punishment in many countries where the political system is closely linked to Islam. There are many countries in the World which advocate stoning as a punishment, the majority of them Muslim. Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia all have stoning as a punishment. In Muslim countries, homosexual people are persecuted on a routine basis. Perhaps the most horrific case of this was when ISIS members threw 4 gay men from the roof of a building. My final point for this round is on the subject of the role of women in Muslim society. Indeed, many Muslim women are treated very well in most parts of the World. However, in Saudi Arabia, they are classed as terrorists if they drive cars. In Iran, in 2004, Atefeh Sahaaleh was executed for "infidelity" That sounds a bit extreme in itself, but it is even more horrific considering that she was raped. She did not willingly have sex with the man. https://en.wikipedia.org... It seems to me as if women are second-class citizens in Islam. How, therefore can it claim to be a religion of peace and tolerance? That concludes my first argument.
Islam is not a religion of peace

Resolution: - Topic: wether Islam is a religion which promotes Peace. - Terminology: > Religion = scripture, law, theology, & thought. > Islam = the religion founded by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) & revealed through the Qur’an. > Promote = encourage, advocate, advance, nurture. . . > Peace, since the concept is broad & abstruse, I’ll define it broadly as = a state of freedom from injustice or oppression. It must thus considered distinctly from ‘pacifism’. Rules: - No forfeit, no disrespect & no logical fallacies. - BOF: the burden of proof is on Pro, as per the fomulation of his resolution. - Sources: authentic & authoritative.