BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Your favorite military unit in history or present.

So I guess I will too just give fact's about the Gurkha soldiers so that this debate is fair.The Gurkhas are Nepalese soldiers used in Indian and British Regiments today.In 1816 they were first used in British East India Company forces.They then where incorporated into British forces after the Indian partition of 1947.More then 200,000 have fought for in all the major wars since the first World War.They have received a total of 26 Victoria Crosses.Now they are stationed all over the world, such as Afghanistan, Borneo, and Hong Kong.Their numbers have drastically reduced, they stand now as 3,500 men and primarily serve as a Infantry.The selection process for joining the Gurkhas is extremely complicated, with exercises bordering the inhumane."Better to die than be a coward" is their official motto.http://www.bbc.com...Also part of their legacy is the Kukri, the knife that they still carry today. http://www.giftsfromnepal.com...
Your favorite military unit in history or present.

Well I know I want get super long paragraphs because we're talking about favorite unit, but here I go. As I said before my favorite regiment/unit is the Royal Regiment of Scotland. It has been active since March 26, 2006. It is made up of six battalions and one company. 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Battalion were lights. 4th Battalion- Armored Infantry. Balaklava Coy- Air Assault. 6th and 7th- TA Reserves. Before they became the Royal Regiment of Scotland. They were known as the Black Watch. Which was a famous military unit during the early 1800s. The regiments motto is Nemo Me Impune Lacessit. And their mascot is the Shetland Pony. That's all I have of info so I will let my competitor go now.
Individual human rights and liberties should transcend or out-rank the rights given to corporations.

As I read your argument, I find a lot of idealism, and an incredible lack of realism. Please explain to me how the world will function if we were to force businesses to adhere to environmental standards. All plastic is made from oil, which you need to refine and get out of the ground. Over 75% of the world's power comes from polluting power, such as coal and other fossil fuels. You state that "The ability of corporations to practice in a manner that violates, endangers, or curtails the human rights or liberties of the general public or individuals is inappropriate." What human rights? Humans, under the United States, have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are natural rights. You could argue, it won't be a very good argument, but you could argue that a company that asks for money in exchange for services or products is violating peoples' rights because those people have the right to those products without having to pay for it. This is called Capitalism. What you speak of is called extreme Socialism, which destroys the economy. There is 1 Socialist country in the world, and that is the DPRK, or North Korea. North Korea has one of the worst standards of living. You state that corporation should have to consider peoples' safety. Your safety is your own problem. Of course you cannot work in unsafe conditions, like the ones we had 100 years ago, but your safety if your own. No one should have to watch out for you but yourself. It is right that corporation cannot be physically injured, but the people running them can. Corporation have interests and property. Corporate person-hood is an American legal concept that a corporation, as a group of people, may be recognized as having some of the same legal rights and responsibilities as an individual. For example, corporations may contract with other parties and sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are flesh and blood "people" apart from their shareholders, executives, and managers, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens. The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and the people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively. In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction which allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions that would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association. I shall await your response.
Individual human rights and liberties should transcend or out-rank the rights given to corporations.

The ability of corporations to practice in a manner that violates, endangers, or curtails the human rights or liberties of the general public or individuals is inappropriate. Corporations should be required to consider the rights, liberties and safety of the general public or individuals before engaging in any business practice. Corporations that pollute the environment, endanger the safety of communities or in any other way infringe upon the public's inteests should not be allowed to continue their activities until the problems caused by said infringements have been resolved. As corporations cannot be physically injured, the rights, liberties and safety of individuals and the general public should be protected and considered paramount to those of corporations. This is my general argument. I will allow my opponent to post his argument before continuing.
Individual human rights and liberties should transcend or out-rank the rights given to corporations.

Individual human rights and the liberties of the people should transcend or out-rank the rights given to corporations. Corporations should not be able to do business in a way that hinders, dampens or impedes upon the rights of the individual or the general public. shared BoP Opponent must prove that the rights of a corporation deserve more consideration or jurisdiction than those held by an individual or the people.
Atheists Believe in Mythological Concepts

You're welcome, but it's not the end of the world, or this debate. And may I say I'm honored that you have taken the time to read through my previous debates, just like I have taken the time to read through your countless links. To clear things up, I'd like to redefine 'myth', in a way that a 3 year old can understand. Myth: Fake. Fiction. Not real. Simple enough? And we atheists do not believe in fiction or imaginary dudes. Also, I have grown tired of your links. You don't have to attach a Wikipedia page to demonstrate there is an idea of a Grim Reaper to win the 'most reliable sources' mark. In other words, you don't have to find a Wikipedia page of an apple to educate us that an apple is a fruit. Now let me interpret what you are saying, in more bold and honest terms: Death exists. So do interpretations of death. Therefore death is mythological. Chaos exists. There is a myth about chaos, and therefore chaos is a myth. Cranes symbolize immortality because of their longevity in Taoism, and therefore cranes are a myth. Do you notice how absurd that is? You sound like a 3 year old saying that her imaginary friend has a name, so therefore it's real. That creeps me out in some way. Yes, we believe death exists. But not the Grim Reaper. Chaos exists, but not its Greek counterpart. Pluto exists, but not on a throne in Hell. Jupiter exists, but it doesn't have a majestic beard and carry lightning bolts. Evidence, observation and logic are true, but don't misinterpret it with fiction, a nickname, or some Native American bird. Truth is real, fiction is fiction. Your examples, they all exist. But just like any religion's holy texts, they're just barging in and trying to get attention. (If you've read my debate about human morality.) You have not proven death, chaos, Pluto or anything are mythological concepts, not even close. I suggest you refine a line between logic from myth, reality from fiction. Look up about schizophrenia. Jedd doesn't believe in mythological concepts. Jedd is an atheist. But you have not met your burden of proof, no, not even close. Bronto believes myths are real. Bronto is...not proving anything. He needs to know that myth is myth, truth is truth. Thank you Bronto for the debate.
Atheists Believe in Mythological Concepts

What the? What are you talking about? *Turns around and opens palms* Who are you talking to? What- I can't- I can't connect a single thing you are saying. I see that you've had a previous debate with the exact same topic and combined your points with your opponents'. What are you trying to prove? Again with the random homepages of random websites and the Wikipedia news page. * I have wasted 9 minutes of my life watching that ridiculous video. Who was the one that posted it, the University of Michigan? No, it was a random creationist who tried to convince everyone that evolution is wrong. Interviewer: How did you know there was a tail fluke in the fossil since that part of the fossil was missing? The scientist: We don't have the fossil records, so we don't know whether there was a tail fluke or not, -Obvious video cut-scene- so I speculated that it might have had a tail fluke. The lady was an obvious actor too. Voters, watch the video and you'll understand. Oh no, better not, it's totally pointless. * Also, I have no idea why you think Rhodocetus is myth. Myth (n): a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events. Rhodocetus has already been widely studied- http://www.nyit.edu... , http://www.amnh.org... and there is so much evidence that backs everything up and yet you are basing your whole beliefs and argument on a single video that was obviously edited with bias. I sense it, oh yes, the feeling. Desperation. You are so desperate into thinking evolution is false that you are tempted to base your entire belief on a missing tail fluke. Heck, there are tons of other evidence that suggests Rhodocetus evolved from a land mammal, and the missing tail section of the fossil might have already been found. Goodness sake, open your mind. For the debate's sake, you would agree that Rhodocetus exists, unless you are going to argue with all your arguments and sources. It is not a myth then. Rhodocetus is not a myth. Hence all of this is irrelevant. Any more nonsensical or irrelevant arguments that want some destroying?
Atheists Believe in Mythological Concepts

The question of our origin or where did everything come from has only two possible answers. Either the universe arose by itself or it did not. If it did then some sort of cosmic evolution must have taken place to account for reality. If it didn"t then there must be a Creator. There is no third option. POINT: Atheism needs Evolution. "Richard Dawkins wrote that his discovery of evolution had enabled him to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist." http://www.bethinking.org...... -Many people seem convinced that the theory of evolution is based on an analysis of brute facts that clearly prove evolution has been a real process throughout history. As arch-evolutionist Richard Dawkins said: "You have got millions and millions of pieces of evidence which no reasonable person can possibly dispute." ----- "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." -Richard Dawkins ----- Whale evolution has been the monumental "prover" that evolution is true and real. The Atheist Mythological creature: The Walking Whale The best-known protocetid, Rodhocetus is known from two partial skeletons that taken together give a complete image of an Eocene whale that had short limbs with long hands and feet that were probably webbed and a sacrum that was at immobile with four partially fused sacral vertebrae.[3] It is one of several extinct whale genera that possess land mammal characteristics, thus demonstrating the evolutionary transition from land to sea. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...... The Science behind Rodhocetus In this video the finder behind Rodhocetus tells about how he figured it had a fluked tail and flippers. This was one of the connecting creatures, a rare intermediate, to show progression of evolution. It turns out, the tail was a guess. The flippers were a guess and dead wrong. Ambulocetus and Rotocetus http://www.amnh.org... The Science of Ambulocetus Rodhocetus http://youtu.be... "Atheism and Paleontology" http://atheism.wikia.com...
Atheists Believe in Mythological Concepts

I went through your links, one by one. I must say they were very interesting. 'The giant birds of Native American mythology' -The link brought me to a site promoting to preserve the Native American culture. Cigwe, Culloo- 'Thunder is caused by the beating of Chequa's immense wings. According to Potawatomi legend, the gaze of the Chequa is fatal.' 'Culloo was a giant bird of prey, said to eat humans and be large enough to carry off a child in its talons. ' What makes you think we atheists believe in a random Native American tribe's myths? Terror birds, the Water Leaper, flying frog- I don't get what Wikipedia's news page has anything to do with this. Human skulls with horns- Some random conspiracy website and another promoting their books. The only websites not laughable were anthropology.msu.edu/anp264-ss13/2013/04/25/mysterious-skulls-found-around-the-world , which also has no sign of horns, but some elongated skulls which were probably a hoax, restrictions of growth by human intervention or a mutated gene. Either way, natural selection explains why we don't see any more stretched skulls if it wasn't just someone feeding off human curiosity for money. Also, the ones about Titanis. Through some searching in the website given by your link (it brought me to a homepage), I find Titanis quite credible. It's the only thing I'd believe in, given your pile of confusing websites. I don't see why it's a myth, other prehistoric flightless predatory birds just like it (phorusrhacids) have been found and it doesn't seem really unbelievable at all. Also, you just threw a bunch of weird stuff here thinking all atheists would believe everything if there's a hint of science in it. No. We analyze the information, weigh up the evidence and think on our own, and not believe everything we see blindly. I get that the burden of proof rests on your shoulders, and I'm currently waiting for more to shoot down.
Atheists Believe in Mythological Concepts

Atheists believe in mythology "The giant birds of Native American mythology" http://www.native-languages.org...... -Cigwe (more commonly spelled Chequa or Chequah) is the Potawatomi Thunderbird, a giant mythological bird common to the northern and western tribes. www.native-languages.org/cigwe.htm -Culloo was a giant bird of prey, said to eat humans and be large enough to carry off a child. www.native-languages.org/culloo.htm "Terror birds" https://en.m.wikipedia.org...... "Titanis" giant bird http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com...... It was once believed that Titanis became extinct in North America around the time of the arrival of humans, but subsequent datings of Titanis fossils provided no evidence for their survival after 1.8 Ma. Still, reports from Uruguay of new findings dating to 450,000 and 17,000 years ago, would imply that some phorusrhacids survived there until very recently (i.e., until the late Pleistocene); but this claim is debated. http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com...... The Water Leaper, also known as Llamhigyn Y Dwr, is an evil creature from Welsh folklore that lived in swamps and ponds. It is described as a giant frog with a bat's wings instead of forelegs, no hind legs, and a long, lizard-like tail with a stinger at the end. It jumps across the water using its wings, hence its name. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...... A flying frog (also called a gliding frog) is a frog that has the ability to achieve gliding flight. That is, it can descend at an angle of less than 45" relative to the horizontal. Other (non-flying) arboreal frogs can also descend vertically, but only at angles greater than 45", which is referred to as parachuting. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...... During an archaeological dig in Sayre, Bradford County, Pennsylvania"a number of human remains were dug up. The skeletons of these artifacts were all anatomically correct for human beings, but they had one odd feature, projections (horns)"protruding"from the skull above the eyebrow. The fact that they had horns and that they would have been seven feet tall in real life provides people with reason to doubt the "authenticity" of these remains. However, this was not the first time skulls like this were discovered. Similar skulls have been found in Wellsville, New York and El Paso, Texas. The remains were sent to the American Investigating Museum in"Philadelphia, were they were"conveniently"stolen never to be seen again. Another mysterious case of skulls, are the notable Peruvian skulls excavated near Nazca. Similarly to the horned skulls, they were believed to have been very tall, up to nine feet! This odd"phenomenon was also found in Mexico, just as the horned skulls were found at other locations. The difference though, is that these skulls" cranial portion are elongated to an unbelievable extent. anthropology.msu.edu/anp264-ss13/2013/04/25/mysterious-skulls-found-around-the-world Human skulls with human horns http://locklip.com...... http://godinanutshell.com......
Gay marriage should be illegal.

It seems as if my opponent isn't going to post any arguments. Therefore, I'm just going to recycle an old argument. It isn't that great, but it is enough to lead me to victory.Argument #1: Unalienable Rights In the Declaration of Independence, one of the United States’ most important documents, it states that all people have three unalienable rights; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Hence, those rights cannot be taken away from someone. Taking away a homosexual’s right to marry violates all three of those rights. Hence, homosexual marriage should be legal in order to protect the unalienable rights of homosexuals. Argument #2: Religion Many people whom are against gay marriage make religious claims to defend their stance. However, religious arguments aren’t relevant. Part of the First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” So, we cannot use religion to make something illegal or legal. Therefore, this argument that those who are opposed to gay marriage make is irrelevant. Conclusion:With two important US documents, I have established not only why homosexual marriage should be legalized, but why religious viewpoints aren’t good for arguments against homosexual marriage. This has been very brief, but like I said, I’m pretty sure my opponent isn’t going to continue this debate. Resources:http://billofrightsinstitute.org...... http://en.wikipedia.org......
Every state should use the death penalty

It is only unfortunate that this is the last round. Since we have had an equal number of rounds already for argumentation and rebuttal, I will engage in neither in this final round, and simply summarize the round and conclude how I think voters should see it. At the end of the day, the conversation is about whether or not the death penalty does more good than harm. If I've proven to you that, on balance, it leans more towards harm, then you should vote for me. If my opponent has made better arguments about its benefits or has negated my harms sufficiently, you should vote for him. So what do you have to work with on this level? Pro gives very little in the way of benefits here, stating that they will cause harm should they return to the general public. Of course, this only applies to the subset of people who would be receiving life imprisonment with the possibility of parole, but that's the best benefit he provides. Against that, what do you have from me? You have this group of people that could otherwise be rehabilitated. You have reduced mental health concerns that result from an overly punitive system. You have innocent people losing their lives, when our judicial system clearly favors "innocent until proven guilty. " You have the cruelty resultant from people suffering from lethal injections, unable to move as intense pain and searing heat course through their bodies. You have a system where only the poor are ever going to be convicted, often without just cause because of inept defense attorneys. You have a system of vengeance that is retributive to some and vengeful to others. And you have major cost increases and intense court clog, forcing policemen and justices off of other cases in order to manage these.
Every state should use the death penalty

Correct the judicial system would work exactly as it does now, the only difference would be that those sentenced to life in prison would instead be put to death almost immediately. The term "life in prison" would no longer exist. Also if they sentenced someone to say 100 years it would also be considered the death penalty since it is highly unlikely that even a new born would live to that age, therefore the person sentenced would die in prison. If you would like anymore clarifications put them in the comments section so we do not use up a round.
Catholic Clergy Under Vows of Chastity Should Be Required By the Church to Become Eunuchs

Strengthening the Church And Bringing Clergy Closer to GodThe Catholic Church requires vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, a rejection of worldly things such as wealth and flesh and a total dedication to their role as ministers for God.The point of the first two vows is to avoid unnecessary distractions that could turn them away from God.But simply having these thoughts and feelings on the mind is itself a burden to the clergy's mission on Earth and these will continue as long as these men have testicles pumping sex hormones through their bodies. Since there can still be some sexual feelings even with castration and since it really serves no real purpose for them other than as a temptation the penis should also be removed.This also would help prevent child molestation in the priesthood and guarantee the safety of the Church's clergy to families. Membership rates in churches will go up, because parents will no longer be afraid about the possibility of the clergy molesting their children. This is not to say that most clergy would do this, but those who wouldn't still benefit from clearing away the distracting thoughts that attend the sex drive and the Church as a whole will benefit from the guarantee of safety this measure provides.Health BenefitsIt turns out castration is good for you. Research shows that castration lengthens life expectancy in males.http://www.huffingtonpost.com...God Loves EunuchsMatthew 19:12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.” Isaiah 56:3-5 Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, “The Lord will surely separate me from his people”; and let not the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.” For thus says the Lord: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. Solomon 3:14 And blessed is the eunuch, which with his hands hath wrought no iniquity, nor imagined wicked things against God: for unto him shall be given the special gift of faith, and an inheritance in the temple of the Lord more acceptable to his mind.