BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Consensual Necrophilia

Thanks to Jifpop09 for his willingness to engage me on this controversial topic. Just so he and anyone reading this is aware, I will be utilizing (as well as expanding on) arguments I'd made in a previous debate on this topic for my opening arguments. I will, of course, post new arguments for rebuttal and conclusion in the final round. In case there's uncertainty here, I'll provide some definitions: Consensual: relating to or involving consent, esp. mutual consent. In this case, consent would be acquired before the person's demise, and will require the signature of both the person whose body is to be used and the proposed partner. Both would have to be in their right minds before providing their consent. Necrophilia: sexual intercourse with or attraction toward corpses. In this case, it would embody the former mainly, with attraction being implied. This would be implemented by making it lawful for those at the legal age of consent, while still alive, to give and record consent for posthumous sexual acts to be performed on their bodies and for these wishes to be honored within a short period of time (roughly a week) thereafter, during which time the corpse will be kept at cold temperature for short term preservation. After use, this claim to the corpse ends. It would be similar to committing one's body to scientific research after death, though in this case, there would be a distinct limit to use. Both of those involved would be made aware of the risks involved in such sexual acts as a part of signing this contract. Obviously, there would be limitations to who could put up their body in this way, such that someone who dies with a terrible disease that could be transmitted post-mortem would not be able to utilize this system. Dealing with basic safety concerns such as this should require little effort, as diagnoses would be made regardless. I have set it to 3 rounds, 10,000 characters a round, with 72 hours for us to make our arguments. As this will simply be two rounds of debate, I'm affording as much space within those rounds as possible for argumentation, though of course, there is no need to use it all. The structure of this debate will be as follows: R1: Acceptance only R2: Opening arguments and rebuttal R3: Rebuttal and conclusion (no new arguments) Yes, I am aware that there have been a lot of issues going around in the forums regarding what is reasonable to discuss here on DDO. However, I feel that debates like these must be had in order to better understand our views, instead of just feeling them viscerally as we so often do. I will be happy to engage with any and all arguments people have against this case. I hope that those that will evaluate this debate will look at this with an objective eye. Much as I am not a necrophiliac myself, I feel this kind of topic warrants serious discussion, as we must endeavor to understand why we feel what we do about these topics instead of just going by gut feeling. For the sake of voting, therefore, I hope people will put aside their personal biases and judge this debate based the rationale behind the arguments provided. With that, I await my opponent's acceptance.
should an all girls football league be started

It is such a pity that my opponent was unable to respond within the allotted time. Ditto what I said in round 2. While I'm at it, I think I'll pull a method out of beem0r's playbook. If you'll pay special attention to my opponent's profile, you'll notice that she has been to this website within the last 2 days. Now, given the fact that my rebuttal in round one was 358 words and given the fact that my opponent has had nearly a week to respond to this, I'd say it would be reasonable to suggest that she could have at least made ONE attempt to respond. That said, I could be wrong as she could have had an infinite number of problems. If that is the case, I won't blame her for giving her time to anything else, although it would have been nice had she at least came her to confirm that she would not be able to respond to my rebuttal. Nevertheless, if she has not posted simply because she doesn't feel like it, then I would suggest that she not start debates (in the future) if she doesn't intend to respond to them. This is not only insulting to her opposition, but to (more importantly) the audience here as well. Thank you.
should an all girls football league be started

Greetings. I'm personally not against my opponents argument. As most know, a true debater can argue from any position. At any rate, let me state that I'm doing this for fun. Anyways, onto my opponent's case: First, she states that all men are created equal, but from an evolutionary standpoint, that is not necessarily true. Our society (the USA rather) was the one to create and/or support such a notion. I believe my opponent is insinuating intelligent design as true in his/her first statement. If that is the case, I ask that she prove that God exist (and that he created existence) in the second round, as I believe that we have no other way of accepting her first notion that all men were CREATED equal. Second, leagues are usually started when enough people are shown to have enough interest. The real purpose behinds these leagues is to make money as well as to provide entertainment to the masses. It would only be logical to start an "All girls football league" if there was a large enough audience that wanted one. I ask that my opponent provide a source (perhaps a petition) which shows a voluminous amount of people who wish to start an all girls football league. And when I say "voluminous", I mean a number comparible to the regular Football (North American I assume) leauge. That is to say, my opponent should at least provide a source that would confirm that the audiece for this "All Girl Football league" would at least 1/2 the size of the "All Men Football league." Third, I ask that my opponent present a source which suggest that many girls would like to play in an "All Girl football" league. Like the previous condition, I would like to see a number the reflects at least 1/2 of the current "All guy footbal" league players. I would agree with my opponent that football is fun and very playable for girls and boys, but if there isn't a real audience that wishes to watch such a sport, there's no point in suggesting that an official league should be created.
should an all girls football league be started

all men are created equal. so why is there not an all girls football league? girls are nearly as tough or tougher than men, and should be allowed to play football. All other sports have girl and boy leagues, even volleyball which some boys enjoy (though i will never understand why). Football is fun, and very playable to girls and boys. if boys don't want girls to play on their team, which they probably don't, then an all girls team needs to be started. I garantee many girls would play. Heck, i would.
The Problem of Evil and the existence of God

A common argument that has been proposed repeatedly throughout history goes something like this: Believers claim that their God is all-powerful, all-powerful, and all-loving. If God is all powerful and all-loving, then it could prevent evil from happening. Evil exists. Therefore, God is either: Willing, but not able Able, but not willing Unwilling and Unable. This is a debate around the Logical Problem Of Evil. I am Pro and will take the position of the argument above. Con will refute this claim. Round 1 is for accepting and optional opening statement from Pro.
Job Creation in the US - Tax outsourcing, Put unemployment beneficiaries to work

I am glad my opponent is taking this debate seriously and I thank him for that. "My opponent neglects the fact that although this might create, jobs for the united states, it would require constant regulation by the U.S government, which in turn would require money to allow for regulation." The regulation is already in place, it would just be an additional item for the IRS to check during audits. The incremental cost is minimal. The source my opponent selected is not in the same context as to my plan to use existing IRS auditing procedures. My opponent points out that passing this resolution would be a huge risk, as we are unaware how effective it could be. The risks are minimal since their are no significant additional expenses to enforce the resolution as I point out above, and reward is incredible. People getting back to work, learning new skills, feeling productive, networking.
Job Creation in the US - Tax outsourcing, Put unemployment beneficiaries to work

"My opponent states that by NOT solving ALL factors of the economic crisis is a waste of time and money. I disagree, helping people getting back to work is a good thing, it might not solve the entire economic crisis, but I think its a step in the right direction. " My opponent neglects the fact that although this might create, jobs for the united states, it would require constant regulation by the U. S government, which in turn would require money to allow for regulation. "Estimates of the costs imposed on the national economy by federal regulation reach $500 billion a year. In Indianapolis, that means more than $1 billion a year is sapped from our local economy just to comply with federal regulations. " (. http://www.cato.org...) As of right now, the government cannot spend money on an idea that simply resolves a small sector of the United States economic crisis, rather, it needs to focus on the bigger picture (a way to repair huge amounts of the economic crisis. ) "This idea can actually save the government money because they are receiving money from the corporations for supplying these workers. " Like i mentioned earlier, the enforcement and regulation of new taxes will cost the United states huge amount of money thus increasing other taxes placed upon the United States citizens. my opponent failed to provide us with evidence as to how much this resolution could save the government or even how much to charge these companies. For this reason, passing this resolution would be a huge risk, as we are unaware as to how effective it could be. In addition, to spending money on enforcing and regulating this tax, the United States government would have to develop a means to punish whatever company fails to pay the money as well as spend more money enforcing these consequences. In conclusion, my opponent has provided no specific information on how effective this resolution might be and how to properly regulate the tax with minimum cost.
Job Creation in the US - Tax outsourcing, Put unemployment beneficiaries to work

My opponent states that my idea does not solve the general economic crisis, I never claimed it would. I am simply trying to solve ONE of our problem within our current economic crisis. My opponent states that by NOT solving ALL factors of the economic crisis is a waste of time and money. I disagree, helping people getting back to work is a good thing, it might not solve the entire economic crisis, but I think its a step in the right direction. My opponent states that by NOT solving ALL factors of the economic crisis is a waste of money. This idea can actually save the government money because they are receiving money from the corporations for supplying these workers.
Job Creation in the US - Tax outsourcing, Put unemployment beneficiaries to work

Case My opponent's idea on how to help the economy is highly flawed because not only does it lack meaning, but it also lacks significant information. My opponent's idea, if possible, does not solve the general economic crisis rather it addresses the smaller section of the economic crisis (unemployment). To better the economy, one must address all factors that causes the economic crisis in the first place. Failure to do this would only result in a waste of time, money and effort. In our current economic crisis we can no afford the lost of money on unnecessary things. We must treat everything regarding the economy, with fragility. Thank you.
Job Creation in the US - Tax outsourcing, Put unemployment beneficiaries to work

Our job creation problems is actually fairly simple to solve. We need to tax corporation who outsource their labor... who is going to replace the cheap labor you ask? Easy...The people who collect unemployment need to be put to work. The government pays the unemployedï¿½, the corporations pay the government the same wage they paid the overseas worker. (maybe the government will break even, they can use the rest of the money to help the unemployed - skill training, counseling, home assistance) You might see this as slave labor for the corporations, but i say So you rather see people collect unemployment checks, and drain our economy further? What is the point of people sitting around collecting checks.... Put these people to work, maybe they will learn a new skills at this job... Maybe they will make valuable connectionï¿½s that can lead to a real job. Obviously these jobs are going to very low level type jobs... Employers might see something in these people that can lead to promotionsï¿½. These are your choices... Outsource OR feel productiveï¿½, learn new skills, make connectionï¿½s. Outsourcinï¿½g is a pure drain!
Job Creation in the US - Tax outsourcing, Put unemployment beneficiaries to work

"The regulation is already in place, it would just be an additional item for the IRS to check during audits. The incremental cost is minimal." The IRS is a total complete wreck. It has shown several reasons or situation in which it is unable to properly regulate taxes. Given them another Tax to regulate would be equivalent to giving a severe mentally retarded child pre-cal test and expect an A. "The regulation is already in place, it would just be an additional item for the IRS to check during audits. The incremental cost is minimal." (http://blog.aicpa.org...) "The source my opponent selected is not in the same context as to my plan to use existing IRS auditing procedures." I ask my opponent this question, were is prove of effectiveness. We cannot pass a resolution simply because it looks good on the outside, we have to go in depth to assure us that this will be an effective program. Our economy today, does not give us opportunity to simply waste money in passing a resolution that will in turn fail with no benefits. To properly reduce the unemployment rate in the United States, the answer is not to Tax companies for overworking there employee, but to build new job in which people are able to apply for. "The risks are minimal since their are no significant additional expenses to enforce the resolution as I point out above, and reward is incredible. People getting back to work, learning new skills, feeling productive, networking." Taxing companies on the basis that there are minimal cost in regulation would be mutiny as the government is now taxing its citizens without giving them a clear understanding as to how the enforced tax is going o help the public. This would be equivalent to letting criminals run free on the basis that freeing prisoners is more cost efficient than imprisoning them. Ones again, my opponent has provided no evidence as to how this is beneficiary to us, thus failing to meet his burden of proof. For the reasons that i have countered all his points, i urge you to vote Con on the basis of superior case as well as a better argument. Thank You.
Religious Faith Is Not Needed

Your quote, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -Carl Sagan, could also mean that religion is an extraordinary answer to the questions that human minds cannot answer. The only reason why religion has become so violent is because followers take it to the extremes. Most religion has good intentions, but there are people that have become so disoriented from the misinterpretation that they decide that everyone should follow their religion and kill anyone who doesn't. People believe in places like heaven because no one knows what happens to your spirit when you die. Religion has its benefits because it revitalizes the spirit, and relaxes people. Religion itself is not abusive; the people who take it to extremes are the main problem. Most people are reasonable, but they are pulled into the vortex of misinterpretation by an extremist religious group.
Religious Faith Is Not Needed

Who would explain the mysteries of the world without religion? Everyone. Through science. Science has always been doing so ever since its invention. Scientists may not know where the universe comes from exactly, but we have theories that are slowly being improved upon that one day may show us the answer. Religion does not give answers to neither the mysteries of the universe or its origins. Instead it just makes extraordinary claims with no evidence. As Carl Sagan once said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -Carl Sagan Evidence any religion has brought up has been religious texts, pseudo science, and Richard Dawkins says it perfectly when he said "Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time." And if you know that religion can be abusive to humanity, why do you support it if its faulty claims are easily refutable at every turn? Sure, things like evolution and the big bang theory are hard to grasp but that is no reason for religion to come along and give false answers and demand that they are truth. And without religion, the world would not go into chaos and destruction. Without the unnecessary crutch of religion, if anything, chaos is more originated by religion in the world. Theists morality is based off a fear of punishment and a hope of reward after death. That's just being good-natured so you can be rewarded. Non-theists morality is primarily based on sympathy, education and social ties. Or many other things. We learn to be good for goodness's sake.
Religious Faith Is Not Needed

Alright then. I will go over the reasons as to why I believe religion is a divisive, simple-minded, ignorant, dangerous, and closely related to a virus in all societies, and is a strange distorted form of belief. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it is very divisive of humanity, and it can be very dangerous. Faith is the belief in something with the act of ignoring any outside evidence or ideals that make it crumble and become irrelevant. A stubborn superstition. It causes people to not want to question the reality about them, millions of theists have their minds possessed by a single idea. And ignore everything else. It causes people to follow the "morality" of their religious texts. Which was very primitive morals then, and is still very primitive morals now. Murdering non-believers through cruel ways such as stoning. Along with homosexuals, other religious followers, the appraising of slavery. These are only scratching the surface of the problem that religion causes. It also causes violence, take a look at the 9/11 attacks. Take a look at the terrorism still going on in the eastern part of the world. People whom are willing to give their lives and others to apparently go to a special paradise heaven after death. This is only some of the problems. And I will end my round by saying a quote from the scientist Richard Dawkins. "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." You don't need religion to have morals, comfort, happiness or health. You just need to go out and educate yourself, live your life to the fullest. Life is a beautiful place, a place where you don't need religion to see its beauty.
Religious Faith Is Not Needed

Hello, my name is Alexander Clark, I'm an atheist who is very intrigued with the concept of religion and how it is being acted upon in the world. I appreciate studying the effects it has on people, and in doing so I have come to the conclusion that the world would indeed be a better place without religion. Or a substitute of religion that does not cause the same problems that they do currently on a global level. It will be a pleasure to greet my opponent and see what he or she has to say.
Resolved: An ideal form of No Child Left Behind would be beneficial to the welfare of the U.S.

I'll follow suit and summarize my case and explaining why I should win this debate. My objective is to prove that an ideal form of NCLB would not be beneficial to the welfare of the U.S., whether that mean it has no effect OR it harms the U.S. If there is no net gain, or even a net loss, I should win this debate. When you look to the merits of my arguments, and how testing simply won't benefit anyone, it's clear that there is no benefit from NCLB, ideal or not. We all know tests aren't fun. Nobody wakes up monday morning and goes "YES!!! Today I have a test in EVERY subject!" It just doesn't happen. And when you compare it to the alternative (ANYTHING you could do at home, or even playing games/watching movies in class) tests become even less interesting. Because funding is distributed based on performance on these tests, schools have had to cut out many fun aspects of school in order to focus on these tests. An ideal form would still have to rely on these tests (if only a little) and thus school would stay a boring place. Now when you cram hundreds of teens into a school, and tell them that the school's future is based on the performance on a test, there's no incentive for them to do well. Many don't care about the school. There's no incentive. You could argue that ideally there would be an incentive, but none are really plausible or even possible. And ever if there was one, it still wouldn't combat the negatives of the apathy. The current school-going generation doesn't value education the same way its parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents did. A free and public education has lost its meaning. I know... I'm a part of it, and I see it everyday I go to school. When making your decisions, judges, I ask that you look at NCLB and decide, based on the above arguments, whether it could ever have a beneficial effect on the U.S. Then look to the fact that the bill has been around since 2001 and it STILL looks like it does today... Congress either likes NCLB as is, or can't realistically do anything to fix it.... Thanks for the great debate, and I urge a CON ballot!