BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There Should be a Birth Tax

Hey this is the first debate that I"ve ever done in my life, so I apologize in advance if I suck at this haha. First of all, you mentioned how overpopulation "can be combated" without explaining why overpopulation needs to be combated. Your argument appears to be relying upon Thomas Malthus's idea, which is that as population rapidly increases, the food and resources that are required to support that population will not be able to increase as rapidly as the population, leaving many people unable to obtain those resources and to die. I am going to assume that when you state that overpopulation is bad, that you are using Thomas Malthus's idea. The Malthusian trap is a common myth amongst people, and this excessively negative myth has been debunked many times. A rapid rise in population growth does not necessarily correlate to a large amount of the population not being able to receive the resources it requires. In fact, quite the opposite has happened. What neo-Malthusians do not realize is because there is a greater population, there is an increase in technological power, which increases the production of resources. Food production is a great example of this. As the population has rapidly risen, more agricultural technologies have been implemented in order to increase the quantity and quality of the crops that were grown, allowing more and more people to be fed. The idea that an increase in population growth will inevitably lead to the destruction of humans is absurd, is not supported by facts, and should not influence our economic policies. My next point is the fact that the American economy will be severely damaged if population growth lowers (I'm assuming that we are talking about America). One huge reason that this will happen is because over time we will have fewer people that are able to work in our economy, meaning that we will have fewer workers within our economy. Our dependency ratio will also rapidly increase over time, and since there will be more older individuals who are not working and who are living off of welfare, the younger generation will be required to pay much higher for those older individuals, which could also cause strains to health care and retirement systems. An example of a country with a low crude birth rate is Japan. Japan's birth rate is around 1.4 babies per woman. As a result, Japan has fewer and fewer workers every single year, which has lead to some economic problems in Japan. The American birth rate is 1.84 babies per woman, so the birth rate is already below replacement level. We should continue to implement pronatalist policies so that we can make our economy better. You also mentioned how "black people will be discouraged from having kids, considering how poor they often are." I fail to see why it is a bad thing for Black individuals to be having children. Could you please expand on this point? There's a lot more that I would like to talk about, but I don't have enough characters left to talk about it :(
There Should be a Birth Tax

I think there should be a birth tax (i.e. it costs money to give birth to a child). This way, overpopulation and global warming/climate change can be combated. Also, there will be less crime, and black people will be discouraged from having kids, considering how poor they often are. Furthermore, a couple will generally not have more than 2 kids due to the implementation of the birth tax. I propose a birth tax of $50,000 USD, or the equivalent in other currencies, for each child. Twins will incur a birth tax of $100,000. Triplets will incur a birth tax of $150,000, and so forth. You have 3 rounds, and a maximum of 3 days and 3000 characters for each round.
The USFG Should Ban Abortion.

Resolution: The USFG Should Make Abortion Illegal In Most Situations.Full Resolution: The US Federal Government should make Abortion illegal except in cases where the Mother's life is likely at risk of death.Definitions:Abortion: The purposeful discontinuing of a human pregnancy.Ban: Disallow in all but prior mentioned circumstances.Human Rights: Human Rights are the freedoms and rights as listed in the US Constitution and UNDHR.Con may begin in R1 (waiving his R4 final) if he wishes.Rules:- No Kritiks or wordplay.- No Shotgunning.- Sources may be External.- No voting Conduct or S&G.Famousdebater has been chosen for this debate.
In the United States, organized political lobbying does more harm than good.

First I would like to point out that the point here is not whether or not it is aloud to lobby its whether it is more harmful than otherwise. My opponent so far has written a long speech that has only a few points on where it has helped but you see companies like walmart and coca-cola that take extreme advantage of these abilities by building stores and production facilities that destroy the environment and kill smaller business. There are other ways of getting your views out there. You can meet with government representatives or talk to news stations and these ideas will weed out the possibility of both political corruption and the possibility of companies like Coca-Cola and Walmart. My opponents second contention is also not a valid point because, the first amendment does not say that they have to let people speak during congress sessions or otherwise. Let us say that a famous law company is having a meeting about a certain client, you cant barge in there and give your argument its not legal. .. so why I ask is it ok in the government. For these reasons political lobbying is a bad thing for our country and must be acted upon as such.
In the United States, organized political lobbying does more harm than good.

First i would just like to start out with that my opponent never brought up any arguments of his own for me to argue so I dont really see how he could win this debate. .. The examples that i did make are ones that need to be seen of examples of equality for black people and of saving the environment. The arguement about Coca Cola and Wal mart, there not political lobbyist that do that so that point is invalid because it doesnt even pretain to the topic. If he could show that Coca Cola and Wal Mart are political lobbyists and they are the ones killing the environment, but so far I dont see how it relates. Even about telling the News Stations, they cant do anything, thats why you lobby to tell the heart of the source. About my second contention, of course you cant barge in there. You have to do it in the PRocedure that it is all set up in. OR else they wouldnt be listening to lobbyists. In conclusion you really have to see still that the examples I gave in my first speech were good when they took action and have greatly made us a better country.
The world would be better off without religion!

wow i think this will be fairly short, and kinda mixed up your arguments that religion causes violence are based around two reasons (correct me if im wrong, im not trying to mislead this is just my understanding) -different religions cause violence -atheists kill those that are religious ill respond to the atheist kill religioius people argument first -by saying that atheists wouldnt have to kill those people if they didnt exist, is justification for black people got killed during the 1800's and well all throughout time, if the color black didnt exist then no black people would have died thus the world would be better off without black people. i think it becomes obvious why this is wrong, murder isnt justified by that sort of logic, in fact there are very few cases where taking the life of another isnt not justified. but on to the other idea that well if reeligious people hadnt existed then atheists wouldnt have had to kill them. Well if we lived in a matrix like society (with more resrictions similar to the utopian matrix but not quite) wouldnt that also be more beneficial, sure wed have almost no freedom in a sense, but hey very few people would be dying. Different Religions cause violence this isnt an argument against religion, this is an argument against multiple religions in existence, if we all had the same religion we wouldnt have these problems. Thus i would argue that yeah, religions are causing vilence, so lets say the world would have been an amazing place if we only had one, and everybody beleived in the exact same set of ideas.
The world would be better off without religion!

I should have made the resolution a little more clear, what I should've said was the world would have been better off if there was no religion ever. I guess I'll talk about your point now... Technically nobody would be atheist, because everybody would be atheist so there would be no "god" to not believe in The reason Stalin killed all of those people was because he wanted to rid the world of religion, if there was no religion there would be no reason for him to kill all of those people. The same argument is true for Hitler, an atheist leader. The reason for his persecution of the Jews was that when he rose to power through the ashes of a poverty ridden Germany, after the devastating loss in the first world war, the country was under the impression that the Jewish people wanted to plunge the country back into a communist regime because most of the leaders of that revolutionary party were Jewish. Without religion, Hitler would not be able to punish any tangible group other than the revolutionary party itself. Again with Mao, he was attacking a religion as well as the western ideals. With no religion to attack the motives for his attacks would be eliminated. (you said) "However in this entire case you fail to prove why the world is better off with an atheistic society" This is very true, so I will now tell you why. I think we can all agree that violence is a bad thing and I will prove that religion causes violence so if you take religion out of the equation then you also take some violence out of it. It also takes one more difference out of the world, we have enough to fight about already with different races and ideals we don't need another. Responses to your responses... -mass murder Your examples that mass murder happen for other reasons I have already addressed and disagreed with saying the reason for Stalin's killings was to eliminate religion and if religion never existed it would not ever be a reason for killings. -you agree that it causes problems but say "ts just as easy to show you that it has helped and the same goes for atheism to." I would like three examples of it helping. Also you can't make the argument that atheism has hurt because without religion there would be no atheism
The world would be better off without religion!

Responses - mass murder - happens for non religious reasons too, and by atheists according Stï¿½phane Courtois author of "The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror Repression"( Harvard University Press, 1999.) over 20 millions deaths can be attributed to stalin, the atheist's regime. - also while you show has religion has created problems, its just as easy to show you that it has helped and the same goes for atheism to. However in this entire case you fail to prove why the world is better off with an atheistic society i am lazy and will only post one argument - In a society without religion, everyone would be atheists, right? This means all the governmental leaders would also be atheist. If you look to the most murderous leaders in history almost all of them have been atheists. Mao Zedong according to the source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm. (Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century. Retrieved on 2007-02-27.) was responsible for a death toll in the tens of millions. Then stallin whose slaughter,as i previously pointed out, also had a death toll also in the tens of millions. on the btw im an atheist, i was just kinda bored
The world would be better off without religion!

religion causes violence and hatred. For example: The jews were killed in the holocaust because of their religion, they were also killed in the crusades by the Christians in the middle ages for a false accusation that they killed Jesus Christ. The "holy land" of Jerusalem is fought over in the middle east causing the hatred of the Israelis and the Muslim peoples of surrounding countries. Also the violence in Middle Eastern countries between the Sunnis and Shi'as, different sects of the Muslim religion, can be attributed to subtle differences in their beliefs of the same religion. Religious groups have also caused many areas with pain because of their elitist views that everyone that is not of the same religion as them is wrong and therefore must be converted.
The world would be better off without religion!

OK so we are both even on the missing of rounds so I will simply restate what I said in the comment I posted and we will continue like nothing happened. Capeesh? First I would like to point out your arguments are conflicting, you first say a "matrix like" society would be bad and then say that if we all believed in the same thing it would be good. Then I would like to attack the statement you made about black people. I would say you are twisting what I'm saying. I'm not saying that atheists "have to kill" religious people, I'm saying if there were no religions (atheism is technically a religion) that would be one less difference for people to fight about.
Organized Religion should be dismantled

I am taking the stance that organized religion should be dismantled, I would prefer it done not by the government, but by the people themselves. My opponent will take the stance that organized religion should not be dismantled.Rules of debate:1) No ad hominem, personal attacks, or insults.2) The number of rounds used for argument should be one less than the total number of rounds, since I am not using round 1 for debate. My opponent should then waive one round, it doesn't matter which. You can post whatever in it, as long as no arguments are made in it.3) The last round that is used for argument should not contain new arguments. It should just be rebuttals and/or conclusions. It can have new facts or information, just as long as it's in rebuttal to your opponent.I don't think it's necessary for me to define any terms. Common definitions of terms will be used. Basically, organized religion refers to any religion in which has leaders in it, and has beliefs that everyone who is a part of it tries to adhere to.
Organized Religion should be dismantled

For the moment, I will cede that heirarchies are not inevitable. I don't necessarily agree that worker cooperatives are a good example of an alternative or that all heirarchies should be abolished, but they are, agreeably, beyond the scope of the debate.My opponent, conversely, has ceded that it would be near impossible to measure the good versus bad of organized religions. Frankly, that admission strikes me as game, set, match. Now, not only are religious institutions unambiguously important in the framework of God existing, they absolutely might be forces that already do more good than harm even if one assumes that God does not exist. And most of the harm done is something organized religions seem to "outgrow" as secular culture tightens their ethical constraints... the Catholic church, for example, hasn't had an Inquisition in almost 500 years. Radical Islamic Jihads are already considered radical, rather than traditional, which means they may fade into obscurity as well. There is every reason to believe that minimizing the evils of organized religion and maximizing the goods of it will be a successful strategy overall. My opponent has failed to make a compelling argument that this is impossible. Indeed, I assert that they would have to prove the opposite to be true in order to really prove their thesis.Regarding the religious inmate issue, I provide the following source:http://correctionalnews.com...Regarding children being forced to attend service... children are forced to do a plethora of things in a society where they are seen as essentially property of the parents. There's a root problem there that needs addressing, I agree, but compulsory organized religion is just a symptom, not the problem itself. I fail to see how, in a circumstance where organized religion was dismantled, a child's liberty would be less curtailed by being forced to engage in private religious services in the home. Finally, regarding the assertion that organized religion discourages individuality, it is worth reiterating that all heirarchies, by their nature, do so to one extent or another. Schools don't often give credit for getting back a creative disagreement with their established fact, and businesses do not reward their employees for exercising individuality in conflict with company policies. I would insist that any remaining arguments made by my opponent in the final round be subjected to the litmus test that they apply specifically to organized religion, and not to all heirarchies in general.
"H Comes Before B in The Alphabet"

Ah, I see. A very nice trick with the title. If I known of course that this was a...riddle, than I might not of taken this debate. You said: "The title even has The Alphabet capitalized. And The isn't supposed to be capitalized in a proper title. 'The Alphabet' is being specifically pointed out." Well the words "Come" and "Before" are both capitalized in the title as well. The capitalizing did not only emphasize "The Alphabet" as you state, but also Come and Before. Well, your riddle worked on me, So I guess your right. I wasn't expecting things to get so...serious here. I suppose I thought this was just plain fun. But for some reason I got the feeling of a "I-Told-You-So" or "Ha-Ha-Me-So-Smart" kind of attitude from my opponent. Oh well...
"H Comes Before B in The Alphabet"

"Which language are we talking about." Language doesn't matter, because we are talking about 'The Alphabet'. 'The Alphabet' is in English. Also, we use English on this site. 'The Alphabet' contains an 'H' before the 'B'. Therefore, in 'The Alphabet', H comes before B. The title even has The Alphabet capitalized. And The isn't supposed to be capitalized in a proper title. 'The Alphabet' is being specifically pointed out. Here is a site about proper capitalization for writing titles: *http://www.writersblock.ca...* "...it is important for Americas youth to acknowledge this issue and learn more." Yes it is.
"H Comes Before B in The Alphabet"

Hello. I would like to start by saying, thank you slammin for starting this debate, as I believe this is a very important issue, espically in todays soceity. One flaw in the title, as you have said the title "says it all", it lacks further discription and detail. Which language are we talking about. In the english alphabet, the second letter to appear (in the correct order of symbols we call letters) in the alphabet is in fact, the letter "B". If that is the second letter, and the first letter, ofcourse using common knowledge, is "A" than there is no room for any letter, yet alone "H" to appear. To help expalin how the english alphabet works in further detail: . http://www.ngfl-cymru.org.uk...
Quran is the word of god

I really feel quite a deep sadness, a spiritual ache, for you sir.....It is amazing that you can be so skewed in your views as a "Christian" I am praying for you to OUR- not either one, not any one person's- savior that you may be brought home. You seem to be a very vindictive person who claims Christianity as their justification- not as a rock of faith or salvation but as a crutch for the very opposite of Christianity. I am catholic, I believe in reconciliation although I am at fault for not taking advantage of the gift and sacrament of confession/reconciliation. I do not ask other Christians (catholic or otherwise) to go to confession, nor do I push them to. But I must say, when I first went it was....indescribable and incomprehensible in feeling, emotion, mentality, physical well being etc. Therefore I'm asking God to bring you to REAL Christianity (Of any denomination- not what you have now) but if it is his will, particularly to the sacrament Confession. I will not further engage in this comment thread in regards to your rebuttle or anyone else who has similar ones. I thank everyone else for their cooperation and beg their forgiveness fo having to be so blunt with you. God bless you, and think about what i have said please. The Nicene Creed- What I believe as a Catholic before anyone starts down the misconceieved roads often travelled. I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Quran is the word of god

Thank you Nick for your kind introduction. I will prove that the Quran is the word of God by using the modern Scientific knowledge and some other facts revealed to Mohammed(PBUH) 1400 years ago, which is either not present in the bible or incorrect in the bible. 1) The Bible speaks about the story of Moses, in the end of the story the israel people were able to cross the red sea when the sea was split into two and when the Egyptians were crossing it, the sea collapsed on them. So on.....(Exodus 14:21-Exodus 15) https://www.biblegateway.com... The Quran tells a similar story, but it also mentions that the body of that Egyptian ruler was preserved, which the bible does not. We brought the tribe of Israel across the sea, and Pharaoh and his troops pursued them out of tyranny and enmity. Then, when he was on the point of drowning, he [Pharaoh] said: "I believe that there is no god but Him in Whom the tribe of Israel believes. I am one of the Muslims." (Qur'an, 10:90) "What, now! When previously you rebelled and were one of the corrupters? Today we will preserve your body so you can be a Sign for people who come after you. Surely many people are heedless of Our Signs." (Qur'an, 10:91-92) Pharoah meaning : a ruler in ancient Egypt (from google) The preserved body of Pharoah is now in Egypt museum. https://www.google.co.in... How did it get there ? http://ayaat.wordpress.com... 2) Do you know in which part of the brain the decisions are made, well according to my latest research Scientists have found that when a decision goes wrong and things turn out differently than expected, the orbitofrontal cortex, located at the front of the brain behind the eyes, responds to the mistake and helps us alter our behavior. http://www.brainfacts.org... ( not an Islamic site) http://www.foxnews.com... ( not an Islamic site) Well this is not the best part. The Quran says "No Indeed; surely, if he gives not over, We shall seize him by the forelock, a lying, sinful forelock!" (96 : 15-16) 3) Discovery of finger prints http://www.sloughhistoryonline.org.uk... The quran 1400 years ago Yes, We are able to put together in perfect order the very tips of his fingers. (Qur'an, 75:4) 4) http://www.islamicedfoundation.com... http://www.geolsoc.org.uk... Have We not made the earth as a bed, and the mountains as pegs? (Quran, 16:15) The Bible the Quran and Science book by Maurice Bucaille http://www.islamicbook.ws... How did Mohammed(PBUH) come to know about all this 1400 years ago ????