BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Voting Racism

To act like Obama's race has nothing to do with this election is just plain naive. Now im by no means advocating that someone's skin color is more important than their stances on the issues and merits in becoming president. Im also not saying that you should necessarily stand at the voting booth thinking about the color of the candidates' skin. But Barack Obama's ethnicity makes this election historic and has an effect on America's world stading. Almost every country with signifigant diversity has had leaders of many diverse backgrounds. But not the US. We're about 15% African American, 30% Hispanic and 10% Asian. Despite that, the biggest "shake up" weve ever had president wise was a 40 year old catholic in the 60's. If Barack Obama isnt elected, America looks like a racist country to the world. http://youtube.com... America looks like that when we elect another old white protestant. So I agree that basing your vote on race is wrong, but to expect the media to ignore it and act like its not an issue in this election is ridiculous
According to the Bible, women should not be pastors

You say all human beings were created equally, and in the image of God. That is true. God does not favor one gender over the other, but He also did not assign them the same roles. He made the man to be the leader and woman to be the follower. This was part of the punishment Eve got for eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In Genesis 3:16, God says to Eve, "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you. " You ask, "If God is all loving, forgiving, producing, and protecting, and equal in creation, why would there not be allowance of women in the church? Is it forbidden? " The Bible does not say women aren't allowed in church. They just are not allowed to preach in the church. 1 Timothy 2:12-13 says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or excercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. " This does not make God unloving, unforgiving, etc. He loves women just as much as men, but as I said before, He assigned them different roles. Because He created us, He had every right to do so. You ask, "Is it sinful if a woman gives her mind in church? " I am not sure if when the Bible says women are to keep silent, it means women are never allowed to state their opinions or ask questions in church. I do know that it is sinful if she is doing it in a way that is excercising authority over men. The Bible makes this very clear in the verse I quoted. I do not claim to know the mind of God, and why exactly He chose to set up the church the way that He did. But according to His word, women may not excersise authority over men in the church, so therefore, may not be pastors. Thanks!
According to the Bible, women should not be pastors

That is quite an interesting argument based on the Bible. For my argument I must say I come from not a Christian or Catholic background but more of an Islamic and Christian background. As far as I am concerned or understand All men (human beings) were created equally. Woman was created out of Man, but both were created in the image of God. If God is all loving, forgiving, producing, and protecting, and equal in creation, why would there not be allowance of women in the Church? Is it forbidden? Is it sinful if a woman gives her mind in church? What is the reason as to whwomen should not be pastors, besides that they should be silent in church? it is something curious to me though.
According to the Bible, women should not be pastors

I am really amazed at how many churches accept women as pastors. The Bible CLEARLY teaches that women should not have this kind of authority in the church. 1 Corinthians 14:33-34 says, "As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says." I am curious how a Christian could refute this. I see no Biblical support for female pastors whatsoever.
Humanity is meant to worship That Which Is Sacred (God) in many different ways.

This topic assumes that there is a greater purpose to humanity- that is, our existence did not spontaneously occur, but that we exist to fulfill a greater purpose. You claim that we are "meant" to accomplish something. This presupposes that a supreme entity exists that "means" for us to accomplish things. I honestly appreciate your efforts to be inclusive to atheists/agnostics/secularists, but in order to take your position, if one accepts that we are "meant" to do certain things, one must accept that there is a divine mandate. There is a big difference between the argument that it's beneficial for all mankind to be tolerant and get along with one another, which I wholeheartedly support, and your claim. Additionally, I am troubled by the word "worship." Christopher Hitchens is right when he warns of the dangers of abandoning reason for faith. There is a crucial difference between solemnly respecting/cherishing and worshiping. When one chooses to make decisions based on doctrine instead of one's innate morality, there is a risk of veering into fundamentalism. Religion is not innately evil, but I believe that fundamentalism is. Most religious texts contain useful and time-honored moral teachings, but I think it would be an insult to humanity to claim that these moral truths are accessible to us only via religion. This will probably make me lose the debate because it will offend religious voters, but every religion's holy texts were written by people, fallible mortals just like you and me, and there is zero proof that any supernatural entity used them as a conduit. Religious texts contain fundamental pillars of morality because the people who wrote them were moral. Also, by almost any modern moral standard, they were far from perfectly moral. There are certain parts of the Old and New Testaments, for example, that basically no reasonable Jews or Christians agree with. A good number of them can be found here: http://www.religioustolerance.org... Many Jews and Christians choose to interpret those passages metaphorically/figuratively, and this underscores my point. When they encounter parts of their texts that conflict with their innate morals, they value their innate morals above the text. That is, they do not worship the controversial text, they shy away from it in deference to what they know is right. This illustrates the difference between rationality and fundamentalism. When the typical person reads controversial text, he/she defers to his/her deep moral convictions, but the fundamentalist worships unquestioningly. If the topic were "It is in humanity's best interest for everyone to be tolerant, respectful and compassionate and to ardently value love and global harmony" I would have nothing to say. That ain't the topic though.
Humanity is meant to worship That Which Is Sacred (God) in many different ways.

Imagine for a moment that God is a mountain. A mountain looks different from its different sides. Different ridges stand out, different peaks appear to be tallest, different zones have different vegetation and animals. Standing on the top of the mountain you can find areas with wide vistas of large regions, or flat areas surrounded by trees where you are unaware of the mountain beneath you. On the sides you will find gentle slopes in some places and impassable cliffs in others. If you place a geologist and a poet side by side on the mountain their descriptions will be totally different, and probably unique. But there IS a mountain. I argue that we are meant to experience the sacred in different ways, just as we are meant to experience a mountain, and our world, in different ways. The one thing we can agree on is that there are things that are holy or important. The majority of atheists/humanists, the majority of monotheists(Christians/Jews/Muslims), and the majority of Eastern religions (Hindu, Buddhists, etc.) agree in the sanctity of life and love. This is the religious equivalent to agreeing that there is a mountain. I argue that other than this central agreement, it is healthier for human kind to embrace our diversity, and explore our own unique paths to holiness, than to insist on converting each other to one point of view.
Humanity is meant to worship That Which Is Sacred (God) in many different ways.

alright, so I don't have anything to respond to. I'd just like to ask voters to actually read what we wrote, and not just vote for their personal preference. I think I made a good case that in order to believe that we are "meant to worship" requires proof of the existence of some sort of deity, a tall order indeed. Religious folk have faith in God's existence. Faith, not proof, and in debate, proof is what counts. Browncoat understandably chose to shy away from the religiously charged language in her topic, but I don't think it's fair to claim that "worship" is a nonreligious concept, and the same goes for us being meant to do certain things. There's an important difference between worship and respect, being meant to do things and evolving to do things.
One's native language structure affects one's world view (Linguistic Relativity)

I hope people get what I am saying. It is based of this, I agreed with the resolusion, and he went and ready one of my past debates, and seen my theory and then after the fact want to change the resolusion to account for my argument would be devistating to his position. This is his message from out of the post: :Sorry, I copied and pasted my last debate, and the full links didn't copy... :The structure of language is surely not "the only way to conceptualize them." Language strictly categorizes things around us that are inherently there, regardless of the concreteness of their language-based definitions... or whether or not a language-based definition even exists. The way we perceive things through our world view is certainly a separate concept. What I will strive to do in this debate is to bridge these separate ideas and try to form a relationship of causation between them. Please vote Fool by disqualification. We dont need this kind of crap on DDO
One's native language structure affects one's world view (Linguistic Relativity)

I ask my opponent to forfeit because he has completely decided to change his whole position after I already accepted. Changing it to the position I hold. What is worst of all, his change is based on my argument in my second last debate. He read my argument. And decided to change his argument to account for it, I know it because I am a practising philosopher and it’s my theory. Secondly it’s not fair to change the debate like that after somebody accepted. We don’t need this on DDO. We know he is lying because His copy and paste worked fine so he is completely lying. You can check out where his past comes from and see he is phony. http://www.debate.org... So the debate is over I don’t even want to debate with such a person, this is where he copying or should I say plagiarizing, his new position. I am sure he has some link that may be similar, but obviously he didn’t have it before and its directly in my debate that ended yesterday. Please Vote Con by disqualification!!! This the argument I gave Language is a complex set of physical symbols used to communicate our ideas. That is every word is a symbol which presupposes an idea. In order for communication to take place the ideas which the word relates to must be similar in the speaker and interpreters mind. That is language symbolized reality. It could only at best describe reality. But you cannot define anything into reality. To define a word is simply to assign a set of words, to another. (You have only changed symbols around) Unless this set of world symbolized some reality its useless and even harmful, if you take it as reality. That is, just to assign a set of symbols to a symbol is circular if they don’t actually symbolize anything. E.g. I could define my computer as boot, but what was formally called computer remains the very same regardless of my definition. A subjective definition is useless because the purpose of language is to communicate objectively. Most people are not aware of what I am saying right now. This philosophy is as fresh as I speak it, its straight from the hill™. Reality has its own attributes whether we like it, accept it, agree with it, believe in it, assert it, vote for it or not. All we do we can do with language is categories it and describe it. Reality could never be wrong but we could articulate it wrong. I am forfeiting because I am not going to argue against my very own created theory. This is wack!! Pls Vote Con by disqualification!!!
One's native language structure affects one's world view (Linguistic Relativity)

Definitions:Language: Complex system of communication used within a group of people. [1] To simplify this debate and avoid the introduction of irrelevant exceptions, we will only be talking about one's native language, or first acquired language. And to clarify further, structure of language: The rules that govern a language (i.e., its grammar.) World view/Conceptualization of world: fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society's knowledge and point of view. [2]Resolution: The structure of a language affects the ways in which its native speakers are able to conceptualize their world.(Pro will attempt to affirm the resolution. Con will attempt to negate the resolution.)The first round of this debate will be strictly reserved for discussion of terms of debate and definitions.Thank you (and only accept if you think you would be able to maturely handle this complex topic and willing to put in the research.)[1] http://en.wikipedia.org......[2] http://en.wikipedia.org......
Abortion

As someone who is pro-life myself, I enjoy an opportunity to participate in a devil's advocate argument. I will begin with a rebuttal of my opponent's arguments, and then proceed to my own arguments. Rebuttal: My opponent undercuts his/her argument by conceding a fetus is "a abomination of human rights" in round two. I couldn't agree more. Giving a non sentient creature human rights would be an abomination. Second, my opponent makes a false claim by saying an aborted fetus is nine months old. The fetus stage of reproduction begins at the beginning of the second month [1] Lastly, whether or not the heart us pumping us irrelevant. We remove life support from people who's heart is still pumping all the time. Now for my own arguments... Total Body Autonomy: Regardless if the fetus is a human being, the mother has total body autonomy. The fetus is there by permission. If the mother withdraws the permission, she has the right to remove the fetus from her body by any means medically necessary. [2] Sources: 1. https://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. https://www.thenation.com...
Abortion

ok, glad you accepted, First of all, A fetus is not "a bundle of cells" it is living and its heart is pumping. It's a abomination of human rights and even though it is in some one. They technically "created" the fetus. Just because you don't want it doesn't mean you have the right to kill it. And second of all, when they kill it, its a nine month old fetus that has most of its parts and it has its rights. In case you wonder, I didn't use any website to write this but i'm sure you will
Abortion

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a federal law that considers the unborn child as a legal victim in certain circumstances, but contains a provision excepting abortion by a pregnant mother or someone acting on her behalf. However, 38 states recognize the fetus as a crime victim in cases of fetal homicide. What charge might a state prosecutor bring against a woman who kills her unborn child? Manslaughter immediately comes to mind. Too harsh? If so, isn"t that getting away with murder? Is guilt alone sufficient recompense for the taking of a human life? And weren't you a fetus too?
Writers debate

= This is for TUF (but you can read too) = That's the route I was wanting to go as honestly, Patrick being in a coma and living out his desires through his life with Mandy. But based on your chapters from round three on, and what we did talk about via PM I figured you were trying to scrap Hunter's story and were trying to get me to continue with the Patrick and Mandy arc. I won't lie (although I don't mean this to offend you by any means), I was a bit disappointed in how much symbolism I planted in my chapters that you seemed to drop completely in your responses; the coffee, construction work, math, La Correta - I honestly worked hard on what I wrote. On that note I'd also like to point out that I didn't forfeit, nor am I all too pressed for time; I felt that or story debate had become boring. (I don't think there's a way to say that bluntly without sounding rude. >->) = This is for everyone = As I said in my last speech, I would ask that those reading please vote on what rounds of this debate TUF and I did complete. I've put about eight or so hours worth of time into this debate crafting my chapters to be interesting and relevant to this game as a whole. Again, I do understand if the readers decide to voted down, but I do request that if you would vote against for my lack of desire to continue the story arc TUF and I had going, that you please make that clear when voting. If the only feedback I get is "Forfeit" "FF" "Etc. " then this debate was pointless; especially since I'm not forfeiting. Since this isn't a traditional debate, I won't close with voting issues (that would be kind of trashy). Instead I leave you with this request; vote based on who provided a better story.
Writers debate

Agh, I should have PM'ed you. I was thinking about it. I didn't want to make your story out to be "a dream". I had planned on a cool flip ending where we find out that Patrick is in a coma, and the life with Mandy is a pseudo idea created from his coma. I kind of thought that's where you were going with this, and thought it would be a trippy ending. I do appolagize that you have lost interest. If it makes any difference, I did have fun in the rounds that were made, and enjoyed your responses thoroughly.I wish you luck in your further debating endeavors, and appolagize that you lack the time and interest to continue forward.Due to the forfeit, I urge the voters to vote pro. Thankyou, buck, and thankyou audience.
Writers debate

This debate just isn't any fun to me anymore. The only reason I debate here on DDO is for my personal enjoyment. At the point a debate is no longer enjoyable, posting feels more like homework than anything else. I don't really want to finish this round. To be completely honest I'm not even really sure what I would/should/could write at this point on, it's become obvious to me that TUF and I have inconsolable writing styles. It would take me at least three or four hours to write something interesting, and I really don't want to put forth that effort to ultimately have my contribution made out to be a dream. I hope any one who has read this debate up until this point has enjoyed what they've read, if not... Sorry :/ I'd ask that voters vote based on the completed rounds since this is more of a tag-team story than a debate, although if you choose not to do so I would understand. I'd also like to apologize to my friend TUF for bailing on him like this. I'm just not feeling what's going on between Patrick and Mandy. I'm not much of a romantic and it wouldn't be doing any favors for you or your characters.
Writers debate

This is a writers debate! The point of this debate is to shed creativity of both writers. One person will write a passage, and the next person will add on to the story accordingly.Whoever creates the most interesting continuation/orientation/conclusion of the story wins the vote for "most convincing arguments"Points for spelling and grammar are awarded as per usual.****RULES****1. 72 hours for time to argue.2. 3 days voting period.3. At the end of each round, each writer will state in bold, what challenge they have presented to their opponent to overcome.EX: Jamie must figure out how to talk to her boyfriend about the drugs.4. Must have completed 11 debates to accept.5. Round 1 is for acceptance.This debate will start in round 2.Thanks in advance to whoever accepts! I look forward to this writers challenge!
A Bill to Invest in Thorium Nuclear Reactors

First, we should be asking "What would create the most jobs"? Nuclear fusion of any kind is dangerous. I never heard of Coal Fired plants melting down. Another good energy source is wind . Building and maintaining windmills creates jobs. Solar is another good source. All nuclear fuel should be put back underground where it came from. In fact it should be banned worldwide. The ability to make "Dirty Bombs" would be eliminated. Thereby keeping it from terrorists.
A Bill to Invest in Thorium Nuclear Reactors

1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE CONGRESS HERE ASSEMBLED THAT: 2. SECTION 1. The United States will designate 3 billion dollars to the research, 3. development and implementation of Liquid Thorium nuclear reactors. 4. SECTION 2. A. One billion dollars will be devoted to the research and refinement of 5. Liquid Thorium reactors. 6. B. The remaining funds will be given out to companies in order to cover 7. the cost of construction. 8. SECTION 3. The Department of Energy, The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the 9. Department of the Treasury will oversee the implementation of this bill. 10. A. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will oversee the safety of any 11. power plant that is constructed. 12. B. The Department of Energy will oversee the aims and allocations of 13. government funding. 14. SECTION 4. This bill will be implemented at the start of the 2015 fiscal year. 15. SECTION 5. All laws in conflict with this legislation are hereby declared null and 16. void.
The Bible Is Immoral: Rape Was Considered A Minor Crime

1. Now back then if you had sex with someone you would pretty much have to marry them. It was just a way to assures morals. 2. Already explained. .. Women couldn't even use currency back then unless they were giving it to the church. Women near to no rights back then. So even doing that is a lot more then other cultures. 3. " trust me anyone who uses the bible as a moral compass has not read the bible" there is just so many things wrong in that statement. First off if they were using as a moral compass they have to know what's written in it. Second there are known to be plenty of people who have read the whole bible and followed it, I'm one of them. I would put a source to prove it but that's elementary. Third you have said nothing other then the punishment for rape of a small child to prove that the bible is immoral. If you are going to make a wild claim like that at least have something to back it up. SUMMARY my opponent has not proof that the bible is immoral or the punishment for the rape of a young women is immoral either. She has used mild language, and brought simple, false arguments. I have brought real arguments and actually used a source. I think I have out done my opponent in every category but you the audience is the judge.
The Bible Is Immoral: Rape Was Considered A Minor Crime

1.My opponent fails to refute my argument about having to spend his whole life trapped with someone he doesn't even know. 2. Yes the money was given to the father because of two reasons: A. She was a young woman who probably couldn't even spend all that money. B. because back then women were in superior to men and much more moral. So her dad got the money because he no longer had a clean virgin daughter. 3. Because you disagree with a punishment in the bible for a crime does not mean the whole thing is immoral. Plus you have not proven why it was immoral, and it might be hard to understand in modern civilization. back 5,000 years ago the world was a different place. So on short you can not say the whole bible is immoral when they gave her a decent punishment for a time like that. http://ww.huffingtonpost.com... b 1097800.html