BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Alaska should become an independent nation.

To clarify: my list of snide remarks people have made to me about Alaska are not in themselves a reason to split from the States. I included the examples only to exemplify how people think Alaska is so drastically different from the rest of the United States, and how it is virtually in its own little world.My opponent asserts that the last time America states made an effort to separate from the Union, violence and bloodshed was the result. While the Civil War was, indeed, rife with violence, not all countries form at the hands of war. For example, after many years of U.S. occupation (and a small revolutionary movement in the beginning that quickly died down), the Philippines were ultimately granted their independence by America.[1] While the Philippines were a colony and Alaska is currently a state, the point still stands that the Philippines did not have to go to war with America to attain their independence. While war seems the most obvious answer and the likelihood of America simply granted Alaska independence at the drop of a hat is small, there exist other ways of peacefully reaching independence. One of these may come in the form of presenting the United Nations with documents that, as I previously stated, prove Alaska's statehood invalid. Unlike other former colonies, we were never given the option of independence, a violation of the U.N. charter America signed during the FDR administration.Alaska may not be such easy pickings. As I said, there exists already a substantial military given the size, and a fledgling Alaska may be able to join the U.N. and establish diplomatic relations with other countries. While one may believe that the wealth of resources within Alaska could cause other countries to attempt conquest, the same could be said of Iceland. The tiny island nation has no military whatsoever, and it is rich in geothermal energy, fishing stocks, and water.[2] Yet, no other nation has attempted to conquer Iceland.Alaska's cultural differences transcend those found in the other countries. It is not so much Hispanics assimilating with whites or other ethnic groups, but rather the fact that Alaskans are forced to function differently than other Americans. The way of life is entirely different. We're bundled up for six months of the year, and even in the summer, temperatures top out in the high sixties, maybe low seventies; instead of going to theme parks in our spare time, we are more used to hunting and hiking; we do not have huge cities--rather, most our towns are so tiny that you'll miss them if you blink at the wrong moment; we are still very much the Final Frontier, unlike most of America, where you can drive fifteen miles and find civilization.There is no reason that Alaska should not become an independent nation, especially considering the fact that it practically functions as one already. It is so isolated and so far away from the rest of America that it is part of the United States only technically.Thank you to my opponent for participating in this debate!Sources[1] http://www.history.com...[2] http://www.iceland.is...
Alaska should become an independent nation.

Just because Americans make fun of people in Alaska, it doesn't give Alaska the right to separate from the country. Even if Alaska wanted to leave they couldn't leave easily. The last time states tried to separate from the nation, it was a bloody affair. Also a majority of Alaskans call themselves American, not Alaskan, which shows that they want to be part of the U.S.A. Also lets say that America does allow Alaska to leave the country, many other powers would look at Alaska as an easy take. It has valuable resources, and is an attraction for tourists, easy money and an easy conquest, because Alaska won't have an official military. What are hand guns going to do against tanks? Even though Alaska does have the makings of an independent nation, every other state does also. For example California has 35,000,000 people, some of the best schools in the country and plenty of industries such as tourism and agriculture, yet it still doesn't have any reason to break of. Also every state, not just Alaska is culturally different,in California you have Hispanic cultures being blended with the white ways with Asian cultures starting to influence it.There is absolutely no good reasons why Alaska should leave.
Homos should not be allowed to vote

Felons are not allowed to vote, sodomy should be considered a felony as it was untill recently in many or most states, no I don't care to do the exact counting or a precise rundown of which states had laws against sodomy as a felony......I know the laws are changing and they are pushing laws to outlaw what I am saying as "hate speech'. That does not mean it is normal or good for men to abuse themselves with each other just because they feel like it, nor for woman to abuse each other sexually no matter how much they enjoy it. Enjoying it does not make it right, and a society that does not have the hootzpah to set limitations on perversion cannot remain a free society for long. It will become necessary for other nations to take over, or an opprossive government to rise which is what is happening now in America where we used to have freedom of speech but "progressives" are pushing to ban speech that does not fit their politics. Homos should not be allowed to vote.......... all sex outside of marriage should be against the law.......I'm not discriminating. All fornicators and adulterers should be hit with felonies and being felons, not allowed to vote.
Homos should not be allowed to vote

("Homos will always vote in favor of butt buddies which is yucky and weird") Pro's assertion is completely groundless, unproven, and contradicts itself. People who are not homosexual do the exact same thing. Democrats vote for Democratic politicians. Rupublicans vote for Republican politicans. So, you're saying that your friends and family are yucky and weird for voting for Republican or Democratic? Homosexuality has absolutely no significant influence in political voting. Homosexuality has nothing to do with voting at all for that matter. ("yucky and weird things are not good for society, so homos should not be allowed to vote") Pro is basing off his affirms off of what he thinks is gross and abnormal, both of which shows no validity to a debating argument. If someone finds Homosexuality gross and weird, then okay then. There's nothing wrong with being grossed out. But, in terms of the validity of Pro's argument, that's invalid because being grossed out is a choice. People are disgusted by different things than different people. But, saying Homosexuality is gross just makes Pro's argument subjective instead of objective. I mean, Sex is gross to some people, but is it wrong? I doubt it is. Again, this affirm contradicts itself becausse there are yucky and weird things that we, humans, do that are actually good for society. ("It's bad enough that they are allowed to proclaim their love of yuckiness in front of people who don't let their sexual impulses guide their beliefs") That shouldn't even be Pro's concern of who's attracted to who. Again, this affirm shows no validity to his position. I mean, this is just common sense. All of the affirms you've addressed are just a display of bias and bigotry towards homosexuals. Plus, it does not support your position at all. I'm noticing Pro's change of subject. He altered the subject of homosexuality rights of voting to homosexuality is yucky and gross. Unlike Pro's case, my cases are objective instead of subjective like Pro's. My assertions are not based off of bias and bigotry. Plus, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 completely protects rights of homosexuals, so there's nothing you can do about it. Plus, I've already given a list of gay politicians.
Homos should not be allowed to vote

I accept. Thesis Homosexuals should be allowed to vote if they choose to be. We should not discriminate homosexuals just because of their sexual orientation. That shouldn’t even be anyone’s concern. Argument #1 (There are homosexual politicians out there) According to Wikipedia, a list is provided of names of Gay and Lesbian Politicians. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] [http://en.wikipedia.org...] Since there are this many gay/lesbian politicians, it wouldn’t make sense to discriminate homosexuals to vote because there are already homosexual politicians out here. [http://itsconceivablenow.com...] This link above shows a list of gay politicians in Congress and famous overall politicians. Argument #2 (They are already allowed to vote, and we are just fine.) It’s not like homosexuals are causing a negative impact to political voting. Voting is their right just like me (I’m an African American), and homosexuals. Homosexuals are just like us except they are attracted to different things. How does sexual orientation have any correlation with political voting? They don’t. An Act called “The Voting Rights Act of 1965” has already prohibited ANY DISCRIMINATION in voting. No, this act is not just towards racial segregation. This act is considered a landmark of civil rights legislation. Just because it says civil rights, doesn’t mean it’s just for racial purposes. The following factors falls under the category Civil and Political Rights: Race Gender National Origin Colour (Human Skin Color) SEXUAL ORIENTATION Ethnicity Religion Disability Privacy Press Assembly Movement Etc. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] [http://en.wikipedia.org...] Argument #3 (Sexual Orientation has nothing to do with voting) This argument is self-explanatory. Homosexuals are just, simply, people who are attracted to one’s own sex. That’s it. They don’t have a disability on voting.
Nothing Can't Exist.

Nothing is not something. Nothing is non existence. Sometimes one may speak of nonexistence, but this doesn"t mean it exists, instead when we refer to nothing as if it did exist, we doing so for the sake of being able to communicate to others what were talking about. So when we say, "there"s nothing there", technically nothing can"t be there (locational reference), but we phrase it like that for the sake of conversation, because otherwise it would be hard to speak on the subject of nonexistence. Nothing is nothing (there I go again, see, I speak of nothing has having a state of existence by using the word "is", only because it"s an easier way to speak on the subject). Our way of speaking about things, doesn"t change the nature of what we"re talking about. Nothing doesn"t turn into something solely because we speak of nothing. Reality is independent of our speaking of it.
Nothing Can't Exist.

Can nothing exist? Well, isn't nothing in itself something? Most define nothing as a space with literally NOTHING. Let me ask you this, isn't space something? One may say the space between atoms is nothing, except that space is something. Why must it have a physical and intractable appearance to be considered something? Gravity, sound, wavelengths, none of them have a physical appearance we can touch, yet they're there. They ARE something. Nothing and something contradict each other so both can't really exist together because if there's something then there can't be nothing as nothing in itself IS something. The fact that we can even argue about nothing makes it something, does it not? In my opinion, nothing is something.
if everyone likes you then you do not have a personality.

To clear the confusion, firstly I intend to start with the definition of 'personality' and 'everyone'.Personality- the set of emotional qualities, ways of behaving, etc., that makes a person different from other people Everyone- means “everybody” and is used when you want to refer to all the people in a group. Because of the ambiguity of the debate title, I will assume that everyone means the people one knows and has met in his/her group of circle as it is impossible for every single one in the world to truly get to know someone. ’No personality’ meaning someone who does not have a set of emotional qualities. I would like to give two people as unforgetten examples. 1. Mother Teresa. Mother Teresa chose to become a nun despite the hardships that would come with it and dedicated her whole life to serving the poor. After the founding of the Missionaries of Charity, she received an international approbation and won the Nobel Peace Prize. Even after she died, many people still serve her as an example to living a life of altruism and selflessness. Her kind, gentle, loving personality was what people look up to her thus, becoming a role model of charity and service.Source: http://history1900s.about.com... 2. Steve Jobs or any other genius creator for that matter. The creator of the famous Apple product who earned many respect and admiration for his foundation. He too had a distinct character that enabled his imagination to become reality. I propose you watch his speech here. https://www.ted.com...Personality is something flexible. However, it is impossible to have 'no personality' or no sets of emotional qualities because everyone has emotions and feelings but it's just that no one truly tried to get to know them properly. This moves to my next point, which will mention the importance of truly getting to know a person before judging him/her. The reason why people start to hate each other is just because they seem different. However, if they truly get to stand in the person's shoes then they will be able to understand why they are atheists, why they do drugs or why they dont, why they act that way.My second argument is that everyone is capable of being liked or has the possibility of being liked by everyone they know . This is because humans have the power to empathize with another. The empathy in itself serves as an emotional quality of a person and that is why someone who is liked by everyone is capable of doing such thus, maintaining his/her character.
if everyone likes you then you do not have a personality.

OK , first of all, on earth there are about 7 billion people. Everyone is different and has different tastes. So do you. People tend to reject those who have different beliefs not because they are racists but because they can not agree with them and they get annoyed by their behavior. For example, I don't like overweening people because they think they know everything. This results in intense disagreements and thus we do not have a very good relationship. You can not like everyone because there are certainly human categories that you hate or some characteristics that you don't like on people. There will always be someone who doesn't like you because he thinks that you're narrow-minded and you do not smoke and do drugs like him and someone else who doesn't like you because you do all these things. You have to choose. You can't match with everyone. Let's not forget that there are some situations where it is not very difficult for someone to hate you. For instance, I f you like a boy very much and he has a girlfriend you have to do something to persuade him to break up with her and be with you. After all, this girl won't like you especially if you used to be friends. The only way for you to be liked by everyone is to be dishonest and double-faced. For example, the one day you smoke all the afternoon with some of your "friends" and the other day you pretend that you think smoking is the worst habit and that you are an anti smoker in order for you to be liked by your other "friends". This doesn't make clear who you really are and thus you do not have a personality.
if everyone likes you then you do not have a personality.

Wait a minute wait a minute, so now Im the one who's supposed to give an example of a person we both know who is liked by everyone when your title already assumes that there might be such a person? You were the one who kept giving me arguments that there is no one who is liked by everyone and the argument then became about whether someone was capable of being liked by everyone instead of being about a person having or not having a personality when they are, in fact, liked by 'everyone' in the impossible definition that you want. To change the argument to the actual point, that was why I had given an example of mine that people dont have to be double faced to make everyone like them. Of course the evidence is based from firsthand experience, but isnt this topic itself about your experience of seeing your own personal friends/people being that way? Isnt experience the reason why you decided to come up with this debate? The experience that people you met who were liked by 'everyone' were all two-faced people? Im only supposed to prove that there exists such a person who is not double faced and is capable of everyone liking him/her arent I?I now dont even understand what I have to argue about anymore. When I say something about a person who is liked by the general, you say it doesnt work that way since 'everyone in the whole wide world doesnt like him and her' which I have for the billionth time know would be impossible and when I say something about someone who is liked by everyone meaning in a group, you say I have no evidence whatsoever to prove it when I did try to provide some evidence of people who are liked by everyone as a general term. You are now in the burden of proof to give an example of someone who is liked by everyone (as I have demanded in my other argument) who does not or does have a personality (as this is what the debate is about). Then the real debate could begin about whether he/she has a personality or not whatsoever.And no I did not do this to 'purposely add an argument'. Would you please stop accusing me of doing something or even thinking about something I wasnt even thinking of? And I did ask in a question in the comment section. My question was clearly, "Would you like to narrow the scope down to everyone in general?" Of course I would start with an assumption based from definition. That was how I understood it and I never really said anything about not even trying to understand it excuse me.
if everyone likes you then you do not have a personality.

OK, I accept that the title was a little vague but if you hadn't understood something you could send me a message or you could even write your question as a comment. You have done this to add an argument and you could have done it to ask a question,too. I don't want to talk about it anymore. What happened happened. Instead of trying to prove which was more vague(my title, your examples) let's consume our energy in an attempt to prove which side is right and which side is wrong. Your first argument is that a friend of your is loved by all your batch mates and you have nothing to support it. No evidence at all. How do you expect me to believe that? Let me characterize your argument like a seven-year-old boy's one. And then you said the epic phrase: "I believe in looking at the good side of people. You may have a skeptical view of looking at humans and relationships, but sorry to break it to you, such a person who is liked by everyone does not have to be two-faced. Some people were just born naturally charming and attractive that somehow draws the good and the bad people." But a little bit earlier you said: "give one example of a person who actually is liked by everyone that you and I would both know. Oprah Winfrey? Albert Einstein? Barack Obama? I think not. Why? Because like you said, they probably met at least one or two people who didnt like them in their lives that we do not know about." So, you make your argument invalid by yourself. I didn't have to think something to rebut it. You just helped me and thank you. Now, you can not claim that you hadn't understood what everyone means because I had just explained to you.And know to support what you said ("such a person who is liked by everyone... Some people were just born naturally charming and attractive that somehow draws the good and the bad people.") you should give an example of such a person that we both know. "Empathy is power. If you think power should always sort to something like invisibility or flying, you are wrong. Empathy is power because no other living things cannot empathize with one another except humans. ". Who defines that an instinct ascribed in a certain species is automatically a power? The fact that other species do not feel empathy does not make it a special power that only people have...There are also claims that certain animals empathize, too. (http://www.scientificamerican.com... ) (http://news.discovery.com...)
Biblical Fundamentalism

I plan on keeping it clean. I will be taking the position that there are many things in the Bible that should be taken literally, but not all. It should be clear in most examples because context and style will indicate which passages were meant to be taken literally, and which were meant to be taken poetically, allegorically, or sarcastically. To narrow the extensive subject further, and since I have the burden of proof, and since I only need to show that there is some evidence to support SOMETHING from the Bible ever happened, I'll focus first on the history books of Kings and Chronicles, Isaiah, Daniel, Nehemiah, and Ezra. From context, style, and content we can see they are meant to be taken literally. From other accounts found in archeology, we can see that many of these events are recorded by multiple nations multiple times. Hezekiah's Tunnel: http://en.wikipedia.org... Sennecharib's conquest of Judah, except Jerusalem: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... The rule of Cyrus of Persia: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... Successful siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon: http://en.wikipedia.org... There seems to be plenty of physical evidence that events and people from the Bible did exist. Something from the Bible did happen, and the parts that record such events can be taken literally.