BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Females are better people than males.

If there were to be only one gender on earth, which gender would be able to live together more peacefully? If one were to look at the nature of females overall, and how they interact with the rest of their community, I believe most would agree females are much better than males in this aspect. They're often more less-aggressive, more empathetic, and able to better cope with reality. This debate will essentially be about who is better at living in a community of others, males or females. ==Definitions== Community: A group of people living in the same place Female: Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes. Male: Of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring. Better: Comparative of good. ==Rules== 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling or semantics6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions 6. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a Loss ==Structure== R1. Acceptance R2. Pro's and Con's case. No rebuttals R3. Rebuttals R4. Rebuttals and conclusion.
We can live exactly by what the bible says?.

im going to let my opponent begin this debate im going to let my opponent begin this debate im going to let my opponent begin this debate im going to let my opponent begin this debate im going to let my opponent begin this debate im going to let my opponent begin this debate im going to let my opponent begin this debate im going to let my opponent begin this debate im going to let my opponent begin this debate im going to let my opponent begin this debate im going to let my opponent begin this debate im going to let my opponent begin this debate
We can live exactly by what the bible says?.

Again,.. you no read so good. If you read all ten and feel that it is in FACT IMPOSSIBLE, physically, emotionally IMPOSSIBLE, to attempt to live freely of those sins, and if commiting a sin, then asking forgiveness and REPENTING said sin,... EXACTLY AS THE BIBLE SAYS WE MUST,.. than you as a "we," meaning follower of the bible, cannot be considered a true follower of the bible at all. If YOU as in anyone that sides with con feels its impossible to live exactly by what the bible says, than you as a "we" in the topic of this VERY debate than you are not a believer in the bible. Simple as that. Please re-read the whole statement and stop cutting and pasting in the middle of my statements and purposely re applying them out of context,.. the voters are smarter than that and can read for themselves.
We can live exactly by what the bible says?.

I see you fail to understand sarcasm,.. as I was attempting to point out your editing job in your debate opening round 2 in which you said:"You have obviously NO read the topic of this debate properly." I believe you are the one who NO read. I have sinned, yes. As a follower of christianity and the old testiment, I have understood that these sins are of mortal weakness, however, it is ones responsibilty as true follower of the bible to repent ones sins. 1. I am the Lord your God 2. thou shall have no other gods before me 3. You shall not make for yourself an idol 4. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God 5. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy 6. Honor your father and mother 7. You shall not murder* 8. You shall not commit adultery 9. You shall not steal*** 10.You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor You shall not covet your neighbor's house You shall not covet your neighbor's wife The Ten Commandements, though not the only guide to defining sins,.. are the most basic principles. If you read all ten and feel that it is in FACT IMPOSSIBLE, physically, emotionally IMPOSSIBLE, to attempt to live freely of those sins, and if commiting a sin, then asking forgiveness and REPENTING said sin,... EXACTLY AS THE BIBLE SAYS WE MUST,.. than you as a "we," meaning follower of the bible, cannot be considered a true follower of the bible at all. But,.. "WE" defined as a follower of the bible pointed out in the first rounds,.. must not only ATTEMPT to live exactly by the Bible, but MUST live exactly by the Bible if you are in fact a "WE," defined as a follower of the bible. No different than one calling themselves a vegetarian but eating meat, not just one occasion but again and again, eating meat. You can try calling yourself a vegetarian, and even eat meat as slip of consiousness, and then repent for eating that meat, and never eat meat again, then you in fact ARE a vegetarian. Same principle applies to those who follow the Bible as the word of GOD.
Women and Men should not have equal rights...

You should debate me. I will show why you are holding onto the remnants of a patriarchal past - an era of grave intolerance and discrimination. I will not "prove" that women are better, to do such would defeat the idea of equality. But to think that the woman who held you in her womb for 9 months somehow birthed a child who had inherently more right to have, do, and pursue the things of the world than she, is pointblank preposterous . What is it in you that says, "because the dice rolled X and Y, I have more rights as a guy?" Also, with are Judeo-Christian roots as a western civilization, and since 82% of the US population consider themselves Christian(1), what would the Bible say about unequal rights? Galations 3:28 "For there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male or female, for all are one is Christ Jesus." The only case you can make is that men and women are distinct in functionality - anatomically this case can be made. But such function does not mean women are not equal in worth and essence and deserve absolute equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The thirteenth amendment was ratified in order to abolish slavery - because it was unfair and unequal. But some confederate states decided to pass "black codes" to restrict blacks from participating fully in society - that is where the fourteenth amendment trumped in. It made sure that all people were seen as created equal. Why see it any differently? 1[http://www.adherents.com...]
Women and Men should not have equal rights...

This is not a true debate. Don't get me wrong I plan to reopen this debate (click my profile and look up my old one if you'd like). However, last time I did this with "first come" debating I got the worst debated alive. Honestly, with how bad the argument was I was surprised they would join a site like debate.org let alone know how to use a computer. This debate is just for the comments. Tell me, as short as possible (don't need to read a ton thanks), why you should be the person to argue against me. I want to argue against the best. I would love nothing better than to have my a$$ (apparently donkeys are not allowed to be stated at debate.org) handed to me by a brilliant argument and have my mind convinced I'm a sexist pig and women are better than me :). So do it, give me the best reason why I should debate this with you.
Should pot be legalized

I accept. It seems that I have the Burden of Proof, so I must show that there is reason enough to legalize pot. POSITION: Pot should be legalized. Reason 1: There is an unnecessary amount of money being spent to house criminals guilty of possession of, use of, and intent to distribute pot. Reason 2: Tax revenue can be earned from the sale of pot. Reason 3: The sale and use of pot could be regulated, as with alcohol, if necessary. *I am using the word “pot” due to character restraints.*
Should pot be legalized

My opponent has not provided support for his assertion that pot should not be legalized. 1. Pot has medical benefits. (conceded by opponent) 2. Tax revenue can be collected by the taxation, and regulation, of pot. 3. Money can be saved by decriminalizing pot. (due to less space used, less arrests required, etc) I had burden of proof and my opponent has failed to address the arguments I have made. SOURCE http://civilliberty.about.com...
Should pot be legalized

My opponent concedes that marijuana can have medical benefits. The fact that people use marijuana to get high in no way shows that it should not be legalized. Other drugs can be used to "get high", however their beneficial effects allow them to stay legal. English Syllogism 1. Drugs that have more medical benefits than medical costs should be legal.2. Marijuana is one such drugC. Therefore, Marijuana should be legal. Classical Syllogistic Translation 1. All B is L 2. m is B. C. Therefore, m is L.
is abortion right or wrong

abortion due to rape is a minority ? is it true ? i don't think so. the number of rape is huge in america as well as europe and asia. this implies that number of unwanted child due to rape is also huge. so why not bring abortion into an optional position ? how about making abortion due to rape legal ? on the other hand abortion to save mom is also a crucial issue. there was a case in ireland where a mom died because her baby was not aborted to save her life. this creats a huge uproar in that country. also there are cases when mom has cancer. in that case , abortion may be necessary in advanced stage of cancer but if the option of abortion is taken altogether , them mother will have no chance at all. better see this link:http://rhrealitycheck.org...
is abortion right or wrong

well i guess we are arguing just hte morality and not the legality. most abortion is wrong. later term, there's no question you are killing a baby. early term, there might be legitimate disputes about whether it is a person. but if there's any doubt, why not give it the benefit of the doubt? even if it wasn't a person, it's still harming one's self and a living entity that is of human nature. there might be exceptions that are okay like rape or to save the mom, but they are in the far minority, so on balance it is better to put abortion in the wrong category.
is abortion right or wrong

the definition: abortion is the act of removing a fetus out of womb. case A: when it kills lifein every ordinary abortion the fetus is removed. if the fetus is considered a living being then it is a killing of life. case B: when it saves life abortion saves life in the following cases: rape, molestation, critical medical condition when mother's life can be saved by removing fetus. etc. i am saying abortion is right. con will say it is wrong.
is abortion right or wrong

so you agree that in the case when abortion can save mom's life, it should be allowed. fine.now lets make a case. lets suppose that you are a girl like any other fun loving girl. you are a college student or school student. you have a boyfriend and out of passion on someday you two made out. you do not want a baby. you just made out for fun. but you conceive. then what you'd do? if you give birth to the baby, your life will completely changed. your future plans which you dearly hold, will have to change, probably abandoned forever. you and your lover have no source of income. but you need money to raise kids. first you two need home. worse none of your family does not accept this relationship. then you will be completely alone with your baby. i suppose that your boyfriend is on your side.if you abort the baby, nothing of the above mentioned thing will happen. life will just go on. what will be the right action for you ?
Free Trade

i am an advocate of "fair trade" not free trade.... or at least "managed trade", not laissez faire trade. the primary flaw with free trade is the idea of the "race to the bottom". countries compete with each other so much that it's a detriment to everyone.... they have to start cutting regulations and wages etc just to compete. perhaps for a country that is just starting to develop, or in the process of developing, they being on the receiving end will reap benefits of something they wouldn't have had otherwise. but for a countries that are already considered developed nations like the US, it leads to problems. this is especially true if you consider that for most effective purposes, we have an infinite labor pool. you can always find a schmuck to take less when he's in poverty, as the world has tons of, the idea of putting our labor somewhere else. for example. mitt romney talked about cutting out labor's union stronghold, saying that it costs two thousand dollars more per car here than other places. he's talking about cutting out pay and benefits, then, just to increase profits. we might agree that the unions get and had too much (eg before the bail out when they didn't have to take as many concessions), but that don't mean there's things being cut, the point of race to the bottom. there might be some benefit to some people, with lower prices in goods.... but not for everyone, and over the long run, it brings everyone down. like that motto.... "out of a job yet? keeping buying foreign". wages jobs etc fall. also, if you look at the share of the middle classes income compared to the richer etc, over time, it not only stalled but started to decrease. especially if you look at it after inflation. what could have caused this? perhaps the free trade act that bill clinton enacted in 1995. (we saw a boom soon after that, due to the internet boom or trade or what is interesting to speculate). even if it was a boom for the corporations as it was... that don't mean it wasn't for everyone, or at least that it'd last. we are essentially making the US meet the with everyone else.... causing us to become a third world nation etc.
This house would not abolish capital punishment

My opponent is arguing that death penalty deters crimes, am I right ? He said that it effectively deters crimes since according to him , everyone is afraid of death. Let me cite one fact. States such as Texas and Oklahoma, which have very high execution rates, also have higher crime rates than most states that do not have the death penalty. With just that mere fact, where is the proof that it deters crime? There are many reasons to doubt the deterrent effect of Capital Punishment. Even if criminals are afraid of death penalty, it's not clear that a harsher punishment would effectively deter murders. Heinous crimes often occur in the heat of the moment, with little consideration for their legal repercussions. Further, for a deterrent to be effective, it would have to be immediate and certain. This is not the case with the death penalty cases, which often involve prolonged appeals and sometimes end in acquittals. Many of the studies that purport to show the deterrence effect are flawed, because the impact of capital punishment cannot be disentangled from other factors such as broader social trends, economic factors and demographic changes in a region. As we end this debate , let me state that I am still on the negative side ! Thank you :)
This house would not abolish capital punishment

Facts: Japan has the lowest amount of per capita murders. there are numerous researches that death penalty HAS deterrence. everyone's afraid of death. If a criminal cripples a person and knows that whatever he dos he will not get a more severe punishment, he might murder the person. But if he knows that if he kills his victim, he will get a death punishment, he might think twice. In the USA we have people put on a death row trying to postpone there rightful punishment as long as they can. I ask again? Is not almost everyone afraid of death? An other issue: Lets look at Norway. Andreis Breivik murdered 77 innocent people. he got sentenced to 20 years of prison. If he would have murdered ten he would have got the same sentence. I ask: is it rightful that a person who kills 10 gets the same punishment as 77? If we talk about the right to life. If some one gets murdered, nobody ask him about his right to life. If we look from this angle , does the murderer have the right to life? there are systems with this is used in a good way. Lets look at Iran. In Iran if someone murders , and is sentenced to death, the victims family may forgive him, and then his sentence will change to X years in prison depending on the crime. Doesn't the victims family have the right for closure?
This house would not abolish capital punishment

No matter how old it gets it still remains as a law and whatever each of us believes does not make our arguments reliable because of merely stating your own opinion rather than just supporting your arguments with facts. Moreover, are you aware of the reason of every country on using death penalty? Most of them uses death penalty to punish persons who had committed big crimes , especially murder, right ? Death penalty is their aid to show people that they are against murder. They want to show people that murder is bad, right ? They want to tell people to stop murdering , but don't you think that they make no difference with the criminal if they use death penalty? They want to show that murdering is bad, but what will they do is also murdering . What are they, a muderers' murderer ?
This house would not abolish capital punishment

Non of what that you mentioned are bidding. (except for EU) International treaties should only give guide lines. It is my believe's that no nation that practices death penalty is currently violating international law. You mention the universal declaration of human rights. Its a 100 year old document that has no concrete on capital punishment, well as the Koran or the bible talk about this problem centuries before Universal declaration of human rights or ICCPR.
This house would not abolish capital punishment

I will be accepting this challenge with all my understanding of the motion given by the instigator . But before I go on with my speech, let me first greet you, good day ! Given the motion that this house would not abolish capital punishment , i , on the negative side , strongly oppose the motion. First reason is that capital punishment is a violation of the right to life, as enshrined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is explicitly accepted in a variety of international treaties including the European Convention on Human Rights protocols 6 and 13, the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union, the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Aside from that there is no valid reason on why we need not to abolish capital punishment.
This house would not abolish capital punishment

Capital punishment is one of the oldest forms of punishing criminals. It has stood the test of centuries as one of the biggest deterrent against crimes. . Death penalty is the ultimate warning. Death penalty provides closure for victims. Death penalty is the best answer to murder and to other serious offences. Death sentence is the ultimate joker of juridical systems. Although i believe that death sentence has its downs, i believe that no N GO or even the UN has the right to restrict a sovereign nation' juridical system. All states have the right to practice their own laws that are in accordance with their state religion, believes and certain borders of international law.
Rap Battle

What was that, your inscription on your welcome mat?Thank you for your compliments, *you deserve some claps*But obviously, we're not in a lame funky jass class Your lines are just little taps, [1] not even mediocre raps Half of your junk didn't make the least senseThe rest is crumblin' down, a very poor defenseI play you like you're the puppet in my handsI'm the mastermind here, you have to follow all of my commandsThink more carefully next time fool, before you acceptOtherwise you'll lose even before the start, 'cause you're so ineptYou won't understand anything I say, you have zero depthSo sad and helpless, wantin' to suicide with some methMy opponent didn't even try to spittin' anythin' substaintialNo matter what he tries, he will lose, the outcome ain't just circumstantialYou'd be servin' the lowest ranked member even in a cultGive up, you're the one who's been beaten to a pulp*Sarcasm*[1] Taps is a type of step in Jazz dance, as the reference to "funky jazz class". As for the word play, usually in jokes we call them "punch lines", so "taps" are even weaker than "punch-lines".
Rap Battle

That was 100 percent crapA rap from a chap with a handicapI'm cool like Bart but smart and sharp like Mozart.The only biz you own is failingBut only cuz I'm a whiz at impalingSo mind your own before it gets blown.My name is Jesus so I can save myself Paid for your sins with my rhymes - they're top shelf My momma is the Dalai Lama, Yours is Osama I added the comma to add extra drama to that traumaThe only trix you have are scaring chicks and eating dixI don't need to counter what you said when I'm already aheadYou've just had a merciless beating Now go heal yourself with some overeating
Rap Battle

Oh look, it's Bensharp, or shall I call you Sir Stink of Brain FartsAll yellow, rottin', an' lookin' worse than the Simpsons' Bart [1]I work as a CEO of a business, he's a poor cashier at Kmart I can afford thousands of Honda Accord Hybrids [2]While he can only play with his Mario GoKart's [3]With a single line I'm able to eject you out to a grave"I'm sorry Dave", [4] your sins are just so bad even Jesus can't save Go back to yo mamma and hide in a caveYou belonged to the Planet of the Apes, anyways I've got so many hidden tricks/trix [5] up my sleeveI'm like the glorious knight riding on his servant rabbit steed Pushin' him, crushin' him, down with my pressurin' weight,He becomes so deformed he looks like he's becomin' unmadeThere's no way you can counter what I saidI beat you up so badly you'll need more than just med's [6]To me, you're as harmless as a cute cuddy ted [1] Bart Simpson is a main character from the Simpsons who is extremely stupid.[2] Honda Accord Hybrid is the top-rated hybrid card in the US. http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com...[3] A go-kart is just a virtual fake car from Mario, with no gears, no horns, no mirrors, and basically absolutely nothing useful excepet for the accelerator and the brake[4] "Eject" is a reference to the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, in which the robot states, "I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you jeapardize this mission". However, this is in more of a sarcastic tone. [5] Rabbit. Trix. Tricks. It's a word pun based on the commercial. Search up "trix are for kids commercial".[6] Med's=medics, medical [treatment]
Rap Battle

Round One acceptance (You may post a rap along with the acceptance, I don't really care, round one doesn't count anyways).Round two and three we rap. There is a 16 line limit for each round. Your lines can be like this [and in this case these "lines" only count as "two lines"], but I don't recommend it since long lines don't make good raps:Random stuff, random stuff, insulting opponent with my rap, make a pun, make him snap, something that rhymes with stuff, guff, guff, I need junk to give an example of "four lines" that can count as two lines in technicalitySome bluff, some bluff, capturing my judges with my taps, fun a ton, don't do this, because now you see it's terrible, yeah yeah yeah yeah, insert some more words here because I've run out of them, something that rhymes with technicality