BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Let it be resolved that the state is evil

Morality exists objectively. It does not matter how many people think it is moral to steal; stealing is wrong. Even if everyone in a society thought it was okay to steal that would not mean that it is okay to take the property of another without their consent. The government uses aggression against all of us. It is quite simply the largest and most successful criminal organization in any given society. The government makes laws, but they do not follow the laws that they make. Governments use violence. Violence is evil. Look at war! Waging a war of aggression is quite simply the most evil, the most immoral thing that anyone can ever do (aside, perhaps, from genocide). Every single war has been waged by a government. This institution is evil, rotten to the core. Without governments, we would be free to produce what we wanted, to spend our money as we pleased. There would be no one spying on us, no one repressing us. No one to convince us to go to war to kill each other. As the great philosophers 'The Offspring' once said 'In a world without leaders, who'd start start all the wars?'. Governments create economic crises by printing money in order to finance all of their preposterous and criminal activities. They impose burdensome conditions on all of us, regulate every aspect of our behaviour, makes laws which make criminal virtually all actions an individual can take and profit off the misery of others. The state is evil.
Let it be resolved that the state is evil

The state decides the religion of the nation. If they happen to be abiding by the morals of their set religion, they are not evil and since they'd never make a law based on religion that didn't abide by it, they are not evil. If you are speaking of a secular state without any set morals then indefinitely there no baseline from which to look up and point out evil in any set action. It is thus not evil to gain people's money by coercion as it would only be doing this if its set of morals allowed it to.
Let it be resolved that the state is evil

For the purposes of this argument I will define the state as an organization with a territorial monopoly on arbitrage and decision making. The state is evil. Unlike other organizations in society it obtains revenue through the use of coercion. This is extortion. It is immoral for me to point a gun at you and demand your wallet; it is evil for the state to threaten me with being locked in a cage if I do not give them my money (pay taxes).
Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States (2)

Thank You AmericanNationalist for engaging me in this debate. What I believe is one of the root causes for opposition to gay marriage is the thought that homosexuality is "gross." Gay marriage is not the core issue. The issue is the perception that homosexuality is immoral, and any promotion or legalization of homosexuality is an affront to "morality." Most legitimate ethical theories support homosexuality as morally permissible, and I would argue that most other people who use Natural Law Theory and/or Divine Command Theory to dictate its immorality are doing so under a flawed interpretation. Just because someone believes a practice is disgusting does give them the justification to deem it immoral or prohibit it. Homosexuality is not unnatural because it is practiced by thousands of animals who cannot act outside natural instincts. And lastly Gay Marriage is not a slippery slope towards other immoral sexual practices for the simple reason that homosexuals typically do not support them. This is why I support legalizing gay marriage.
Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States (2)

To end my side of the debate, I believe that homosexuality and gay marriage is immoral, unnatural, disgusting, and a step in the "slippery slope" of marriage freedoms. I believe that marriage was always intended to be between one man and one woman, and that their roles would be to reproduce and pass on genetic information to their offspring, and to raise said offspring with motherly and fatherly love only found in heterosexual couples. Whether or not God deemed homosexuality moral, I argue in a more modern sense; that homosexuality is scientifically/biologically unnatural and can be voluntarily controlled. I also argue that the slippery slope is the most dangerous path for and America which is losing its traditional morals and values. I fear that if gay marriage is legalized, people will demand that polygamy, sodomy, etc. should also be legalized. Thank you for debating with me; I enjoyed learning about how you feel about gay marriage.
Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States (2)

Whether or not God or religious law deems homosexuality moral or immoral, there are many other branches on this tree. It is very unnatural to see couples of the same sex engaging in an intimate or sexual relationship. Nature determines a person's sexuality, and a person's outside environment can have an impact on sexual preference. While some scientists claim there is a "gay gene," other, more well respected scientists claim that this is epigenetic; where environmental factors directly impact the gene. Therefore, sexuality can be controlled, as your environment and lifestyle can be altered. If you are a heterosexual, you can jut as easily become homosexual, and vice versa. Finally, there is the future. During the sexual revolution in the 60s, new experimentations and ideas led the people to demand recognition and legalization of gay marriage. This change in idea was the same for abortion, when one new idea led to several new ideas. If gay marriage is legalized in the United States, there would be a demand for greater sexual freedom, going far behind the traditional relationship of one man and one woman. America is already losing grip on our traditions, and we must not let this one new, unconventional method of marriage lead to more. Since gay marriage has come about, other immoral relationships, such as polygamy, have been discussed in our courts. Essentially, the question is, what's next? Where does America stop? After gay marriage is legal, then the people will start demanding legalization of polygamy, sodomy, and cousin marriage. All in all, what happens next is my biggest worry, not what religious or natural laws claim. I fear that the people will not know when to stop, and that eventually, we will go to a point so far, that all morality will cease to exist.
Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States (2)

Gay marriage should not be legalized, for many reasons. One, it is immoral and is banned in most major religions. Second, it is unnatural. A family must consist of one man and one woman to carry out their respective motherly and fatherly roles. A same sex couple can not use this universal rule of marriage, and can definitely not raise adopted children the same way biological children of opposite sex couples are raised. Third, if gay marriage is legalized in the United States, think of the repercussions... the people will then start demanding legalization of other unnatural and immoral forms of marriages and sexual relationships, such as polygamy and sodomy.
To qualify to be a president you should haft to serve in the army.

I agree with you. Other skills do help with a president. But what i am saying is they need to serve. To see what they are doing when they are starting wars. Not just the experience but they need to understand what exactly they are making those men and women do. And why they are doing it. Because when they are starting wars, And having thousands if not millions die. For a war they started and sit in a office just making choices and never to have helped with the army in the first place. I find it cowardice just a bit. And i understand what you mean. Other skills do matter when making a president including a strong leadership skill. But just because they have some good skills. Doesn't mean they think about are soldier and other military personnel.
To qualify to be a president you should haft to serve in the army.

I disagree that the President NEEDS to go to the army to be president. Because, The army isn't just what makes up a good president. If you have experience fighting, But don't know how to strategize than you lose more men and woman fighting than "saveing". Plus, Being president isn't only about wars, It's also about trade, Vetoing bills, Laws in our own country, Talk to people about problems(nationally). So the military is only a portion of things the qualifications the president needs to know. (also, I respect your opinion 100 percent and am willing to change my view)
Hours Spent on Internet Should Be Limited One Way or Another

Good luck and for right now i will just leave a short statement. Psychological like violence, cyberbullying, school woes, obesity, lack of sleep have also effect us all in different ways.Lets take Violence for right now we have all these games like Call of Duty and battlefield and in them you kill people,now it would seem like a easy thing like monkey see monkey do to relate the killing to them doing it in real life but i have noticed that the kids who play "Violent"Games actually tend to be less violent due to them using them as a stress reliever.
Hours Spent on Internet Should Be Limited One Way or Another

Kids should spend no more than TWO HOURS online per day, warn doctors - but will parents have any hope of enforcing that rule? Doctors 2 parents: Limit kids' tweeting, texting & keep smart phones, laptops out of bedrooms. #good luck with that. The recommendations are bound to prompt eye-rolling and LOLs from many teens but an influential pediatricians group says parents need to know that unrestricted media use can have serious consequences. It's been linked with violence, cyberbullying, school woes, obesity, lack of sleep and a host of other problems. It's not a major cause of these troubles, but 'many parents are clueless' about the profound impact media exposure can have on their children, said Dr. Victor Strasburger, lead author of the new American Academy of Pediatrics policy.
Hours Spent on Internet Should Be Limited One Way or Another

Alright i'll address the rest now Cyber bullying is something that can effect anyone at anytime it doesn't matter if you spend 2,20 or 0 hours on the internet because there's always gonna be someone to say something bad about you there's no way around that except ignoring it or just simply shutting it off. School woes? Do you mean bad grades? Cell phones,internet,and technology don't always hinder a child's ability to learn,it helps alot of times because technology engages children and its better to have a textbook that can be updated in 30 seconds rather than 30 years. Obesity would happen with or without technology because of a persons dependance on people and items or just being lazy.Technology helped me lose 50lbs last year because it took something i wanted and gave me methods of doing it.There will be some kids that will want to sit on there buts all day playing games but thats easily outdone with a parent acting as a parent. Lack of sleep happens naturally to teens because of puberty and daily activities that just tire us out.
Wyoming does not exist

Ummm. Sure I guess. Just because you don't hear about Wyoming that much doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Nauru, Kyrgyzstan, Brunei, Kiribati. Now you may ask, Well what are these random words. Well, These words are all the countries you've (I bet you) never heard of. Just because nobody talks about these countries, Doesn't mean they don't exist. Now you see. Your argument is autistic, Retarded, And idiotic.
Wyoming does not exist

So basically, In my years of being a man, I have come to the conclusion that Wyoming just doesn't exist. Like, Do you ever hear anything about Wyoming? Do you actually know about anything interesting that has happened in Wyoming? That's because it doesn't exist. You see, My theory is that, When driving through Wyoming, You get kidnapped by the Government, Who then erase your memory, And send you on your way. This is what Trump doesn't want you to know.
Volunteering should be a requirement for highschool graduation

Of course there"re students who won"t express interest in school subjects, But that will only affect themselves: they will have low grades and their own professional path will be impacted - and that"s their entire fault. If they"re forced to do something they"re not attracted to, It"s much more dangerous: people or animals in need should be treated well, Not in a shallow manner. If volunteering was a requirement in highschool, Students would only have to dedicate a small amount of their time - let"s say, 10 hours per year, Because they would have to study as well. I don"t know whether spending 10 hours per year in animal shelters or foster homes would shape their view of the world or not, But I tend to say no. It"s just too little and it doesn"t work like that. Giving extra time for volunteering is not productive - as I said, Students have their responsibility to study first and foremost. I think too little volunteering work is relevant for real life jobs.
Volunteering should be a requirement for highschool graduation

You say that many students will only do shallow work, And while that is true for some, I feel personally that there are more students who would be glad to participate than one might think. See, If you give them a decent variety of volunteer work, Most of the students will find something and participate willingly in it. There will always be those who dislike the idea and will be shallow in their work as you said, But they likely react to most of school that way. There are volunteer positions for many fields of work, And unless the school is very small it shouldn't be hard to find different open areas. Some students also want to volunteer at places regardless of school, And if school's were to make finding a good volunteer spot easy, It could help a lot of people, Inside and outside of school. As for my own argument, Volunteering will give students an idea of how the world works, Which most schools fail to do accurately. Allowing a student to participate in, Say, An animal shelter, Can help them realize just what is needed to be done about the population of strays and how to care for said animals. It would help out a lot in many places to have students volunteer, As it can help them see more of how the world works and get them more experience in whatever field they have volunteered for. Speaking of different volunteering fields, It can help in that sense as well. If a student is able to volunteer in a field of which they are hoping to take on as a career, They are getting school credit for gaining knowledge of their future career. This is helpful in many ways, As it helps prepare them and gets them used to the environment they will be working in. Therefore, It helps them be a more successful worker, Which is good for everyone involved.
Volunteering should be a requirement for highschool graduation

It is true that school must play the most important role in every teenager"s education and this is what it does: offering students a wide range of subjects and helping them build their general knowledge, Encouraging them to think on their own and many other things which are meant to shape their mindset and develop their intellect. However, This institution shouldn"t interfere in people"s private life and shouldn"t transform this act of charity into a requirement. This action asks for loyal and dedicated people, Who express their willing to take part in this kind of events. If volunteering was a requirement, Many students will only do shallow work, Will be indifferent and so on.
Tithing is NOT Bilical

I accept this challenge. My first point of contention is while no there is not a direct statement in the New Testament that states that we must pay ten percent of our income there is evidence of Jesus one-upping the instruction. When speaking of Moses Law, we do realize that yes Jesus broke half the laws enforced by the pharisees. No he did not cover all of Moses law and say whether this law is overturned or still in affect he did say this in Matthew 5:17 Do not think I cam to abolish the Law or Prophets, I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.(NIV) A lot of people will go to this phrase to say well we still need to follow all of the old commandments. Yes, but they forget this word fulfill. Yes, Jesus became the lamb for sacrifice once and for all. But that's only part of the law. Jesus one-upped the Laws given by Moses. If we live in the vine we will produce good fruit John 15. The specific bible verse I am going to use is the story of the rich man approaching Jesus. I prefer the version of the story from Mark but Matthew still tells the same story. The rich man approaches Jesus asking for the key to eternal life. Jesus replies by stating a few of the commandments and the boy replies by stating that he has followed all these commandments. Yet Jesus challenges the man. Sell all your possessions and give to the poor. Then you will have treasure in heaven. Then, Come and follow me, he says. The man walks away sad. Question? Where does tithing go to? In my church what ever isn't used as Pastors salary or to pay the utilities in the building is put into the food bank. No Jesus didn't say give to God he said skip a few steps and simply give directly to the poor. This is the evolved form of tithing.
Tithing is NOT Bilical

This debate is ONLY to be accepted by a Christian who believes that the law of Moses has been abolished, and thus we are not under the Mosaic Law as per Romans 6:14 and Eph 2:15. This opponent my believe that the Bible teaches Christians are obligated to pay tithes. He may be Adventists, Catholic, Protestant, or Evangelical. He must bear the burden of proof for showing where the Bible teaches tithing is enforced upon Christians. Round 1 is for both acceptance and Con's opening arguments, and all other rounds are for rebuttals and presenting evidence. My challenge is that there is NO evidence in the Bible, that the Christian church which Jesus came to build contains tithing as a rule for its members to follow.
Gay Marriage

I will be debating 16kadams again on the subject of Gay Marriage. My opponent had time constraints last time, and so it ended in a tie. Hopefully this debate will turn out better.Resolved: The US should legalize marriage amongst homosexuals.Current definition of Marriage according to US law: [1]"The legal union of one man and one woman."I argue that this definition should be redefined to include same sex couples. My opponent must show me why I am wrong.Rules: Round 1 is acceptance and definitions. If there is anything else my opponent wishes me to define or to clarify, he can do so in his acceptance post. Rounds 2 and 3 are for arguments and the final round is for final rebuttals and closing statements. To clarify, we are arguing solely about SSM in view of the law.I very much look forward to this debate with 16kadams! Good luck! References-[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The best teacher in IB

Although Mr. Parent is an exceptional teacher, there are many teachers that excel far beyond Mr. Parent'ts capacity such as (but not only): Mrs. Rushing, Mrs. Quiros, and Mrs. Munger. Allan Parent infamously known for "teaching nothing, testing everything" one student went so far as to say "we don't have a teacher, we Allan". UU a dumb nigga bc you aint even XD on his asss honestly kys
God made the Universe.

We can see your profile, your debates, your stats. You have taken the side of an atheist in another of your debates. I don't know if you're planning to give atheism or theism a bad name, but either way, that's not a very good thing to do. We value a good debate, and you're going to look like an inferior, weak guy who needs to cheat to win. I can't argue if your arguments are like this.
God made the Universe.

'My imaginary friend is real. Read the books he wrote, believe he exists. Nothing more, nothing less.' Really? That as an argument? There are tons more theists out there more intellectually advanced than you kind sir, and have the guts to explain what backs up their claims, have the guts to really debate. Please. I hope this is just acceptance. I want a real debate, not just some brainwashed guy trying to make others blindly follow his faith. Whatever supernatural nonsense you blindly worship, that's your call, but I won't. I hope you walk out of this as a man who is able to think critically.
God made the Universe.

God: Any God. I suppose the title is simple enough. Pro will be arguing that God made the Universe, Con will argue that He didn't. What you can write on any rounds is not restricted, except round 4, which will only be available to rebuttals and no new points. Burden of proof is shared. It's time for this to be debunked. A basic opening point: No, the God didn't make the Universe, there was no omnipotent all-powerful intelligent designer. Because there is simply no evidence. If you believe something without any evidence, you are believing based on faith. Just because you believe in something doesn't mean it's true.
humans should endeavour to become a vegan species

human beings have flourished on earth in vast terrains and we still do with differing food type availability. the amazon diet is very different to the eskimo diet and yet all the varying human communities omni/carnivores and herbivores have all flourished healthily whilst maintaining fundamentally differnt diets. Your examples are of omnivore diets; eskimos eat fish, and game, amazons insects, fish, livestock, and game. Being omnivores is what allows us to eat such a wide range of nutrition as a system is totally interwoven into our other bodily systems and so it is actually very incomplete to deduce that children who dont drink milk will have weaker bones or a calcium shortage. You are right. You could eat 33 cups of baby spinach, or 5 to 6 cups of cooked spinach to get the same calcium as 8 oz of milk. My point was more that no one really eat this much. You would have to eat all day long. scientists ultimately only manipulate data to make it appear favourable to the goals of the organisations that fund their 'science' Most of them never make a peer viewed study. They are not scientist because they are not trying to change the minds of scientist only the general public. if a scientist was to point out that cows milk has been shown to be incompatible with the human stomache, the dairy industry would ensure that 100 other scientists rebutt or 'reinterpret' the undesirable science. Actually there has been scientist that have claimed this; as a reason behind lactose intolerance. There was not much of a rebuttal. The rebuttal is we are getting used to it, because we have drank goat’s milk and not cow’s milk though out most of human history. large parts of indian civilisations up until the present have remained vegan for 1000s of years without any scientifically noticeable calcium deficient conditions incidentally these same people have also been reported to not spending their whole lives grazing on their vegetable curries to keep their nutritional standards in line with their omnivore brethren Can you site a source for even one Indian tribe that is vegan? however, realistically lets start by protecting the cows and hens whose pain we can clearly perceive......then we can go searching for carrots' tears and emotions. Did you know talking to a plant makes it grow more? That there is a field of science that are studying plant this kind of stuff, it is called plant neurobiology. Also plants have a perceivable pain response. Many plants will recoil when you hurt them. http://www.discovery.com... My opponent as locked them self into it has to be livestock or plants. There are more options than just these to. The best argument on my side currently is that insects solve all of my opponent’s arguments so far and still have humans not being vegetarians. My opponent as yet to give a rebuttal to this point.