BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage

First off, thank you for challenging me in a debate. You say that you don't understand why I'm discriminating against people who want to be happy. That is a very generalized term. You say that I'm taking their right to be happy. Ok sure, I am taking away their right to be happy. But, if someone cheats on their wife because it makes them happy, does that make it OK? No, it does not. If cheating on test made someone happy, that doesn't make up for their unfair advantage. My sole reason for disagreeing with gay marriage is not because "I hate gays" or "I think gays are horrible people." No, I disagree with it because I base my life off the Bible and the standard God set put. Multiple times it is mentioned in the bible that homosexuality is wrong, it's a sin. "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22). Now I'm not going to run around everywhere yelling "GAYS GO TO HELL." That'd be wrong, I don't need to do that, nor do I want to. You may ask, Ok so fine. But then why do you want to prevent them from getting married? Well not only is a marriage supposed to be for a man and women only, marriage was originally a Jewish or Christian thing. Now it's a secular thing, I'm fine with that. My only issue is that when gays get married, it desanctifies marriage.
Gay Marriage

You say that being gay is not okay. And I would say, "I get it". But I don't. I don't get why you are so discriminating against people who want to be happy. I'm currently not married, or even dating, because I want to live alone and travel the world. That would make me happy. Also, chocolate makes me happy. My pet dog makes me happy. My family makes me happy. For some people, being married to or dating someone of the same sex makes them happy. If somebody takes away that right, it would be like someone taking away chocolate, my dog, my family, or the ability to travel the world from me. It's all really the same. And maybe, "God wanted us to marry people of the same sex". Sure. Maybe He did. But I know that the first thing He wanted us to be is happy, whether that means being alone and traveling, being married to your opposite sex, or being married to the same sex. And we're happy.
Environmental Regulations

The environment is vitally important. We humans, however, have wreaked havoc beyond imagination on all living systems. We have polluted Earth in ways unimaginable even 200 years ago. Nuclear weapons, persistent organic compounds, habitat destruction, and global warming, along with a whole host of other man-made environmental disasters, are ravaging our one and only home. Humans are directly responsible for this. More specifically, our way of living is responsible for this. We consume, consume, consume, without regard to the waste and abuse we are leveraging on our planet. Businesses and industries must be made to comply with basic environmental standards. These standards are the only glimmer of hope in a foggy sea of depressing environmental news. They need to be strengthened, not weakened, as many conservatives suggest. Anyone feel capable of debating that we don't need environmental regulations? Step right up!
Capitalism vs Socialism

Parameters and Precepts: Round 1-Acceptance Round 2-Cases Round 3-Rebuttals Round 4-Defense No kritiks Forming a new argument in the last round is unacceptable Terms: Capitalism-an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. Social Democracy-a socialist system of government achieved by democratic means. This debate will focus on the advantages and disadvantages of both system. Pro will be definding the advantages gained by a social democracy(Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, Canada), and disproving the advantages of capitalism provided by Con.
One world government

Mr. Hikarijon, some interesting ideas. I apologize for my absence, I came down with some sort of stomach bug. I don't really have much to add beyond what I've previously laid out. I still stand mankind is not ready for a one world government and may not ever be. Beyond space aliens uniting mankind against a single enemy or a civilization taking control of the world, no peaceful process will ever reprogram humans to forgo personal desires. I will add (off topic) generally speaking, anyone who insults you for personal beliefs are probably not the brightest of individuals. Healthy debate is one thing, insulting is childish.
One world government

Hi there, Hm, I agree with what you are saying but I am notreally talking about the framework of Government that exists at the moment, I am talking about a shift in thinking to remove imaginary boundaries. It is not a physical revolution that is required but a waking up of the seeping masses (not in a conspiracy theorist Zeitgeist kind of way but more of a realisation that certain things are just not real) to the fact that these only exist in the mind, we have become so accustomed to thinking a certain way about anything outside our comfort zone that we take it as fact when someone tells us what to do. You may have to worry about walking down a street in Detroit but that is a hell of a lot easier than simply surviving on your own in somewhere like England where thedaily struggle just to eat and keep a roof over your head is a much greater worry. The problem I have is that I get labelled along with those other nutters ... like Jaques Fresco who have this romantic ideal which is nice on paper and nice to dream about but provide no intervention or struture for the plan required...change the way we think and the rest will follow without violence or upheaval....we only do what we do because we as a people allow it. A government can only exist as long as the people go along with it, politicians go with what the masses (sorry I mean voters) want...or are told to want...so imagine if the majority all changed the way they think? the politicians would have to at least follow that train of thought and provide something that is going to get them votes....place this on a global scale alng with some careful planning or resources and he presto.....it works....its so simple...yet I have that label stuck on my back that makes me a whako!
One world government

Mr. Hikarijon, thank you for your reply. "you are still thinking within the existing framework.. what I am talking about is removing the framework, remove the actual boundaries and then you remove the conflict." It is for this reason I am apprehensive of a one world government. Removing the framework of modern government will not alter human behavior, at least not initially. It appears your opinion is that all humans treat one another with dignity while striving to ensure everyone has access to clean water, food, medicine, social services. I agree whole-heartedly with your sentiment. Unfortunately not everyone is willing to set aside personal desire for the good of the whole leading to imbalance. I sum it up like this... I SHOULD be able to walk down the most dangerous streets of Detroit without fear of being robbed. The reality is I'm likely to robbed. Now I presume my opponent will say "if the world were equal this will not happen." While that is true, what is also true is that such a world cannot exist. Thus the One World Government will be flawed and without a series of checks and balances the potential for corruption increases. History has shown, governments are very effective at using military force to subdue protestors/revolutions. Outside nations provide assistance to revolutions they deem favorable allowing such activity to continue. Again, I'd like to point out we must argue based on human behavior. While the idea of a Utopian one world government is the IDEAL situation it is not achievable by current standards. It requires Cultural Revolution that may or may not be attainable.
One world government

Hi there, great points and thanks for bringing them up but there is still a major flaw here....you are still thinking within the existing framework.. what I am talking about is removing the framework, remove the actual boundaries and then you remove the conflict. Nobody is saying to abolish religion but it is because of this imagined separation that we have the problems in the first place. There is no reason to tribally protect ones resources if you remove the seperation, how far do you have to move from one village to be considered outside the imagined boundary? distance has no issue anymore, religion is simply a waste of time as its basis in reality is just laughable...it was there to explain things that once could not be explained..the only thing holding back this more efficient and shared way of living is the people themselves.....no wonder governments must be lughing at us all and corruption surely follows as it is simply exploiting the flaws within the existing framework. remove the invisible imagined boundaries and there will be no need to fight for what is readily available...I dont know why people cannot see this simple point?
One world government

Mr. Hikarijon, thank you for your reply. As promised I will respond to your argument and layout my thought process for separate governments. "This is the problem, even creating a simple sentence already shows a defensive or negative approach assuming that there is going to be a totalitarian dictatorship or somehow people are going to lose something or have to do without something." I suppose it's not really important to specify a government model. All forms of government are flawed (albeit some are more successful than others). I agree with my opponent, if everyone is treated equally and individual needs are met perhaps the world will be at peace. This however, is a very unlikely scenario. Consider the following article... http://www.nytimes.com... (Not exactly a scholarly source, I imagine there is about 80 % accuracy) It is important to debate, not on how things "should" be (Utopian) but rather based on how humans have existed in the past. I'm re-stating my first round argument. Humans are tribal and will war for resources. This is important as it will cause the collapse of a "one world government". We may wish all humans were like Mother Teresa, the fact remains there are plenty of the opposite. My opponent also mentioned "Religion takes a back seat and stays out of politics..." This statement is very problematic. States exist within our world that demand/desire Islamic law as the foundation and only law allowable. (See: Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc...) While I prefer separation of Church and State we immediately have conflict with this one world government. Now I will layout my thoughts for division. War is tragedy but war has also spurred developments in aeronautics, space flight, fusion, medical treatment and human dignity (treatment of POWs via Geneva Convention). While one might argue advancement in these areas may or will occur without war I submit, governments spent countless resources in advancement of these areas particularly because of the threat of war or to increase their first strike capability. (I.E. Space race between USA and USSR.) While this may be considered speculation, I believe we can generally agree that people will do what"s best for themselves. If we raise this to the international level using political action, we can assume governments will do what"s best for the country (and the people of that country) they represent. With this we have forced compromise at the international level. (Certainly countries with higher GDP/military strength have a stronger voice but this is the way of the world.) One world government may be possible but I believe only when humans are forced to compromise do we have peace. Without the need for compromise slavery begins.
One world government

Ok, thought I would thrown this one into the mix, theres a lot of banter being thrown around about the pro's and cons of the planet being run and managed by a single entity. Now from where I stand it sounds like a good idea but there are those who see this as some sort of dictatorship but I feel that the reason we have so many people stating that others will simply not agree and no one solution works for all these different cultures and beleif systems screams to me that because we have all these particular divisions (and our obsession with keeping them seperate) is the fundamental reason we are opposed to a system that works for everyone. While we constantly fight for individual country and culture identity the more we fail to see that following an example of a system that works is the right way forward, using historical evidence against the plan by stating that these kinds of plans have failed before due to greed and corruption only shows that the system was not designed to work for everyone. We live in a divided world only because we choose to, nobody forced us to but if intelligent life ever made its way over here they would wonder why a species that can travel to Mars cannot resolve disputes and differences within its own atmosphere. We are a single species, religion is not a race and race is only defined by imagination not biology, I only dread to think how people would fight against each other when faced with a common enemy. A perfectly organised system that is designed with the interests of everyone and not the individual would certainly be better, a community works better when everyone works together and a government designed by our species for our species would certainly work, its just not easy.....whoever said the right thing would be easy? I invite someone to argue this point without using imaginary boundries, I would like to know how people think on this one
Men shouldn't have the right to vote.

You want a argument, i'll give you one. The topic of this argument is men shouldn't have the right to vote, not are men smarter then ladies. You are giving me proof and studies that women are 'smarter' then men, but nothing else. You are giving me no reason why we should stop rights of innocent, smart and strong people. Ever heard of Steven Hawking, Steve Jobs or Isaac Newton, all men, and all smartest people ever. Which gives proof that men are smart. But I said there didn't need proof for that. All we need is a free country. Rules that are not dumb and rules that will keep the world going.
Men shouldn't have the right to vote.

Traditionally, the man would vote on behalf of his family. However, society has now progressed by giving women the right to vote. Now is the time for it to take a step further by allowing the woman to take the responsibility for her husband, and take the right to vote away from men.In Russia, there's a saying that the woman is the neck and body of the family, the man is the head. This references the fact that women are better than men at handling home affairs, such as finances and cleaning, whereas the men go out to work. But upon further inspection, the phrase is a pathetic attempt by the male chauvinist to save face, showing the irrationality behind masculinity and accepting the truth of female supremacy, but only to a degree.This is the direction that society is headed, and now it's being accepted more widely and openly that women are superior. By four, young girls now notice they are more intelligent, better behaved, and try harder than boys. By age 8, the boys finally accept it as well. Into adulthood, women are more effective workers across the board, and are now, despite residual misogyny, outearning men. On a fundamental step to inevitable and glorious matriarchy, we must continue recognizing women and give her full power over men. Women have higher IQs, are less bigoted, and have better social skills, so handing all voting rights to them is common sense. To progress further, we need a mature public, and letting the dumber, weaker, lazier sex - men - vote would be a grave mistake.Girls are better students http://www.bbc.co.uk...Women are better workers http://www.theglobeandmail.com...These days, boys are getting physically weaker from staying inside too much, allowing girls to overtake them in upper body strength https://m.youtube.com...
Gods actions can be unappealing, but man's actions are far more dangerous to life on planet Earth!

Here's something you didn't take into account; not every animal dies; some animals like jellyfish can be practically immortal, plants thrive until they lack conditions necessary. Why would some hyper-intelligent being who can design entire species and viruses design a species that needed to eat at all? Why wouldn't it make them use photosynthesis like plants? Why did this god decide that he would wipe out an entire ecosystem because he wanted to see how well they could adapt. If he did the same again, humanity would be wiped out too. Only rats and smaller animals might have a chance, but they wouldn't survive another one either. Plants can live forever, but are picked off by higher ups in the food chain. If every creature used sunlight, then this wouldn't be a problem. Death wouldn't even happen. You can't justify murder by saying "oh, they were going to die anyway". That justifies rape, murder, every crime under the sun, since they're going to die anyway. The heat death could be averted by this entity too. By the way, I don't kill micro bacteria by washing, I just move them down the drainpipe, that's how washing works. And I didn't create those bacteria. It's not like I made an ant colony and started dropping rocks on them to see which one were best adapted to have rocks dropped on them. You cannot preserve life with a virus, in the same way you can't preserve life with a nuclear bomb. At least humanity is reforming itself, cutting down on C02 emissions and trying to regrow plant life. God just starts forest fires and floods to wipe out those plants. If this god controls the world, even to a limited extent, then obviously he could find a way to stop global warming with his super intellect, you know, the one that designed the brain, something we still can't fully understand. A being of this scale cannot justify murder on such levels. Nothing humans have ever done has amounted to the destruction caused by volcanos, earthquakes floods, disasters of all kind, and the big one, complete genocide of the dinosaurs, who were not a danger to their environment, and dies unjustified deaths. If there is a god, he would have to be like a hyper intelligent monster, treating this world like a game of the Sims, where he on occasion gets bored and burns the house down before walling up everyone inside. You're saying that the actions of the guilty kill the innocent. God is guilty then, and he has killed far more innocents than Hitler, or Stalin, or any monstrous person ever has. I would like to thank my opponent for an entertaining debate and hope to encounter them in the future. Duncan.
Gods actions can be unappealing, but man's actions are far more dangerous to life on planet Earth!

If you truly wish to portray God as some intelligent designer, then the level of intelligence he would have would be incredible. We're talking about an entity that supposedly designed the genetics of every species, that designed the brain, but you say that God couldn't foresee a species using tools and growing exponentially, that's ridiculous! God isn't just acting upon humans, he acts upon every creature on earth. Mankind is nothing compared to God in terms of mass murder and destruction. Pollution is a problem caused by humanity, but we are reforming our ways. The hurricanes haven't eased up. Tsunamis, earthquakes and eruptions are still devastating compared to our actions. You have said that evil only plays a part in choice. But God didn't have to create animals that had no mouths, he didn't have to hit the earth with a meteor, he chose to do that. You speak of God with limits, but the very notion that a being that can create things out of thin air, but can't foresee the consequences of his own actions? I said that I would allow the hypothetical existence of God for this debate, but your god still makes no sense in terms of his limits. Having limits on a God, making him seem creative, but then trying to say that the he only started the world and the rest took care of itself; you're trying to remove any responsibilities he might have for his actions. This entity would have to be smarter than every computer on Earth; infallible. God didn't provoke us; we provoked ourselves. And the universe is surprisingly empty; we're the only planet with life for light years to come. Please explain your God, as it makes little sense and only raises more questions. Duncan.
Gods actions can be unappealing, but man's actions are far more dangerous to life on planet Earth!

Your use of the Old Testament's Commandments implies a belief in the Old Testament God, only limited. The problem with using an Old Testament God is that having a limited God seems odd, especially since the bible tells of such miracles like turning water to wine, chemically impossible, implying omnipotence, or in the very least an extensive grasp of physics. If God is to be Omniscient, all knowing, then surely he could foresee that a race with tools of wart would begin advancing in technological advancement exponentially, like the log phase of bacteria. He foresaw this, and yet allowed it to continue. If you truly wish to use God as a force controlling nature, then his actions have been far more destructive than any action humankind has ever committed. God wiped out 75% of life on Earth with a meteor over 65 million years ago http://www.scientificamerican.com... and left little alive. Why? The dinosaurs were not dangerous, they lived a balanced and eco-friendly lifestyle, did they deserve death? Not only did that meteor hit Earth and smother the skies with ash, but God went on to shift the gravity of the planet, wiping out all the larger beasts who could no longer pump blood to their hearts, dying painful deaths. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://news.nationalgeographic.com... Think not just what has God done to man, but to all animals God has made with such "wisdom". http://en.wikipedia.org... A fly with no mouth. Set to starve in just weeks. Metaphorically, a Saw style sewing shut of the mouth is a brutal way to go. God has not atoned for these actions, if the bible is to be followed he even sent his own son to be nailed to a cross to de for a species he designed to be tribalistic and tool using. At least humanity is now trying to repair the damage it has caused, curing diseases and trying to establish education and healthcare while cutting down on emissions, whereas God creates new diseases all the time. http://www.who.int... I know I accepted that a God could exist for this debate, but if he were to exist, he would be the most brutal and cruel being known in the universe, I will end with a quote from Stephen Fry. "You can"t just say there is a God because well, the world I beautiful. You have to account for bone cancer in children. You have to account for the fact that almost all animals in the wild live under stress with not enough to eat and will die violent and bloody deaths." See you next round, Duncan.
Gods actions can be unappealing, but man's actions are far more dangerous to life on planet Earth!

God's actions can be unappealing to us. He has the power to hurt individuals and injure nations. His behavior can be cruel, can be interpretted as "unjust", and can drastically overwhelm communities on Earth. But man poses the real threat. His immoral behavior, flagrant disregard for others and the environment is where the real problem lays. As a result God must act to eliminate threats on the planet. Intelligent humans can alter life on Earth to the point that the quality of life is greatly reduced. God therefore must respond aggressively and destructively (on human perpetrators) when this is the case.