BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If a person wants to live in a good world, he should ACTIVELY do things to make the world better.

It is undeniably a superior view to try and help others; in one word, this could be described as "selflessness." However, in my opinion, we cannot expect every individual human to have this viewpoint. Many, often those in poor conditions themselves, cannot afford to actively attempt to help others. There are millions in poverty now; of course, it's better to help them out, but should they not ask for better treatment themselves simply because they wouldn't sacrifice their own families' well being to help each other? There are also many people who simply don't look into matters like this. They don't know anything about them, or have any interest in them. This is something that has been part of our species for as long as we've existed; there are people who are ignorant, and concerned only with life. They don't think about long-term events, or people far off on the other side of the world. They think only about what their instincts tell them to think about. Can we truly say, from the bottom of our hearts, that those human beings do not deserve to live in a moral world? By saying that "if you want to live in a good world, you have to actively try to make it better," you would imply that many, many people do not deserve to live in a happy world. Key word being actively, I'd like to bring up another point: CAN everyone do these things? They might want to, but they aren't necessarily able to. There are plenty of people that don't know how to help. Also, the idea that everyone living in a good world should want to help others and make it better, in my opinion, would end with the philosophy that, "the world should not be good." I say this because, imagine half the world's population taken out and replaced with people who want to make it better. Would we still be human? Moral goodness is something ingrained in our souls from birth, but can we expect every one of us to act on it above all the other things, also ingrained in us?
If a person wants to live in a good world, he should ACTIVELY do things to make the world better.

Creating a great world where Justice, equality, fairness are observed, opportunities are given, everyone is educated, diseases are annihilated, and violent conflict is eliminated requires serious effort. It is my position that those who don't want to improve the world and establish equality and justice for all shouldn't expect this for themselves! Ultimately this philosophy would justify a "Dog eat dog world", where technically everything is justified and morality fails to have any weight. Con will argue that justice and morality exist independent of human action and purpose. I will argue that humans decide what is just and moral, and that if humans want to live in a just, kind world they should work hard to see justice and kindness EVERYWHERE. My position is that justice and morality are decided by humanity - and do not exist independent of human wants and concerns! Ultimately it is what we strive for collectively that decides what is moral . . . thus morality does not exist independent from our collective wants. Con should begin his argument in ROUND 1; ROUND 4 will be designated for our final statements on this topic. (Serious debaters only.)
Gender and Sex are the same thing. (Sex as in the definition of male or female)

It is not off topic. I stated a legitimate difference between sex and gender. A troll would say something like, "Fortnite is retarded" or, "Were you there? ". I'm kind of literal, So I take things literally at least instinctively. You can change the debate to, "The concept of sex and the concept of gender are the same" to avoid this loophole.
Gender and Sex are the same thing. (Sex as in the definition of male or female)

That is off topic. If you were somewhat informed on the topic/wanted a real debate, You would have attacked the obvious argument that I was presenting instead of going at the spelling of the words. Clearly I wasn't talking literally about the words themselves being the same, Rather the definitions. We can agree that the spelling of the words "gender" and "sex" are different, However the definitions in my opinion are the same.
Gender and Sex are the same thing. (Sex as in the definition of male or female)

My argument is that after the law, As well as millennia of biological evidence and straight facts say that there are two sexes/genders (I believe that in this context they are the same) that the feelings of people should not then dictate how I have to behave. I believe that I should be able to call you by your biological gender and that I shouldn't have to walk on glass in order to not offend you when I've never talked to you before. I believe that gender and sex were interchangeable until 1949, With Simone de Beauvoir and in the 80s and 90s with Judith Butler. My goal with this debate is not to be offensive or to cause harm in any way, I'm simply encouraging a civil debate in which someone with the opposite viewpoint explains to me why they think the way they do. I appreciate any time you spend talking with me because I'm 100% open to new ideas! :D
The user DontBeRacist is racist.

-------------- Rebuttals -------------- 1) That is inconsequential to this debate. I stated in the topic "The user DontBeRacist is racist" not "The user DontBeRacist is a liar and secret racist"; so as you can see, the question of whether you admitted you were racist or not is of no relevance. 2) Do you mean profiling as in "police profiling"? If not please provide a definition. ------------- Argument ------------- Since CON has accepted this debate and has not raised any issues with my definitions in the first round (which he had ample opportunity to do since the word limit is 8000 and I doubt he went over 150) I shall assume that he finds them both acceptable and accurate. According to previous definitions, if CON has a "prejudice based on race" then he is undoubtedly racist. And to prove that CON is "prejudice[d] based on race" all I have to do is provide evidence that he has a "preconceived preference or idea" about different races. This is clearly demonstrated by the comment he left on the user jingzhezhang's profile: "You're asian. Why are you spamming me with kfc? " CON could have simply asked: "Why are you spamming me with kfc? " in which case it would not have been classified as a prejudiced comment but the fact that he included the sentence "You're asian. " turns it into a prejudiced question based on race. CON's preconceived idea was that asians do not spam kfc when, in actual fact, some asians indulge in a little kfc/chicken related spamming from time to time. . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... Unfortunately I forgot to provide the sources for my definitions in the first round; I apologise for this but here they are: . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Gay Marriage should be legalized in Australia

Good try, but god didn't write the bible, people did. Tony Abbotts sister is gay, you would think that he would try to help and support her, but no! If you believe in the bible then: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: Women should keep silent in churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 1 Corinthians 11:5 But every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. Do you believe in these sexist comments in the bible, should we believe in what the bible says, we wrote it, god didn't. We should change it.
Gay Marriage should be legalized in Australia

Ummm...Yes actually God did write the marriage act, (Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind... Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them. Romans 1:24-27 - Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves... Mark 10:6-9 - But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female... Genesis 2:24 - Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.) And also, these religions such as Christianity (I'm not too familiar with the others) teach us not only correct marriage ways, but also to love your neighbours/enemies, so when we Christians meet and hear of gays or lesbians, then we shouldn't be hating them and a number of us don't; but then again sadly a number of Christians do. If you don't know how Tony Abbot treats his sister then just leave them out of it. As my evidence of the bible proves, there is certainly wrong in accepting and committing gay marriage or gay anything of a sort. Everyone has a different opinion, mine is to still love these lost people, but to never accept such an atrocious manner of living.
Bullet Control

If you're not going to try to argue with me, according to your response, then I win by default. Also, you can't call conspiracy theories arguments. You were using nothing but unsubstantiated nonsense. America is not falling apart, and Barack Obama is not trying to break us apart. I'm guessing you're forfeiting because you ran out of conspiracy theories and nonsense to argue with. To everyone who is reading this: Since my opponent has forfeited, I hope that you vote for me. Also, I respond to all comments. If you have a question, simply ask in the comments and I'll try to respond as soon as I can. Have a good one.
Bullet Control

Lets ignore the amount of big time criminals that would still be able to afford these bullets and have more successful robberies and being able to rob people with no fear of people shooting back. If you Democrats somehow got this law passed, This would only make the Country fall apart even more..... First of all, There is without a doubt that Texas would secede, I live in Texas by the way. But lets ignore that, The southern part of the country would riot, This would cause EVEN MORE crime than before, people would be robbing gun stores, scavenging for bullets and the streets would be on fire, the government would fall, but, lets say this wont happen. As we all know, Obama has opened the borders, probably letting thousands of ISIS members come in and plant their roots and wait for the moment to strike from inside, when they do come out, Millions of people wont be able to defend themselves, it would be mass slaughter. I hope you know that Bullet control is a very controversial decision that should NEVER EVER happen.
Bullet Control

Recently, I watched a Chris Rock skit about gun control. He jokingly proposed an idea, bullet control, that I found to actually be a legitimate solution to the gun problem in America. Anti-gun control activists claim that guns are used for self-defense and less guns equals more crime. If guns are only used for self-defense, then you don't need anymore than a couple of bullets (or in rare cases, a full chamber). Therefore, bullets should be priced at $5,000 a bullet. Guns are already cheap enough, so having expensive bullets will put an end to mass shootings. No longer would an unemployed bum be able to find the money for a gun and some cheap bullets. Imagine how many lives would be saved if a murderous person couldn't afford bullets or could only get hands on one. Now, you might say, "Since the bullets are so expensive, people needing bullets for self-defense won't be able to afford them." If the bullets are that expensive in the first place, then there would be few people you would need to defend yourself from because not many would be able to afford bullets. If someone tries to jump you with a baseball bat, chances are you'll be able to defend yourself better than if that same person was holding a gun. Also, you may say that hunting is ruined. Personally, I never found it appealing to kill innocent animals for fun. If your need to hunt friendly animals is incredibly strong, then get a bow and some arrows. Lastly, here is a website that links to a new study that shows more guns equals more crime: http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Gay marriage should be legal.

Thank you for responding. My computer broke, and I couldn't respond, even though I would have liked to. Hopefully we will have a very efficient debate. Let's start by analyzing some of the reasons why gay marriage should be legal: 1) It's wrong to deny a man the right that only a women has; marry a man. When marriage requires the equal participation of both sexes, that's unequal treatment of the sexes. 2) Gay marriage would change the definition of marriage, but not the value. If gay marriage is imposed on society a, then society will adapt to the change, just like the desegregation during the Civil Rights Movement. 3) It provides many benefits for gay couple than a 'civil union. ' 4) Children would be adopted since the couples are sterile and have a family. Many people worry about children "becoming gay" when they are adopted by gay parents. But, let's look at some facts and statistics: bloggernews. com says,"According to the 2000 census, there were 163,879 households with children being raised by same-sex couples. That number is said to have climbed from between 1 and 9 million children. About 67 studies have been conducted by the American Psychological Association, focusing on children of gay parents. Each of these studies proved that children do the same no matter which environment they grow up in. The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics agree with these findings. " Gay couples are going to be together, regardless of being married. And gay marriage does not physically harm anyone, or effect anyone they do not know. Just because two men or two women want to be married does not mean all kinds of laws are going to be made about other kinds of marriages, such as polygamy, etc. Some benefits that gay couples will have if they get married includes: 1) To show their commitment to society 2) Mutual legal protection I now hand the floor to my opponent.
Video games caused WW2.

It is a little known fact that Hitler didn't like violent video games. He much preferred to play on his tamagotchi and eat pasta.This brings me to my first point: It was in fact pasta that made Hitler so angry. Germany didn't have any pasta in the late 30's due to the great pasta shortage, so he wanted to invade Italy (where else?) to take their pasta. It just so happened that there were a lot of countries in the way. This made him angry so he started to take it out on other people.However this is a little known fact because the mason order covered it up because in reality the Germanic masons had all the pasta and they didn't want to be blamed for the war.
The Bible encourages debate

Thank you Impact94 for accepting my challenge. Let's get started.Argument #1: The Patriarchs contended with GodI have two examples for this argument: Genesis 18:22-33 where Abraham contends with God over the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah Exodus 32:7-14 where Moses contends with God over the destruction of Israel (and convinces God to relent) Both of these men are held up as righteous men to whom we can look up to for example. Cross reference John 8:39 which encourages the children of Abraham to do the works of Abraham. Neither were reprimanded for their actions, and Moses actually had measurable success in his contention. If men are encouraged to follow in the footsteps of Abraham and Moses who contended with God, how much more should he be encouraged to contend with his fellow man. As noted above, this falls within the definition of debate--i.e. to contend with words.Argument #2: Acts 15 council sets a model for theological decisions through debateIn Acts 15, we see that a number of the early church leaders gathered together to consider a certain matter, each bringing forth their opinions (verse 7). Through this process, a decision was made.So, again, we see an example being put before us that encourages debate.Argument #3: Contradiction necessitates debateI will provide two examples and then explain the reasoning: Deuteronomy 14:21 sets a distinctions between strangers and native borns with regard to eating what dies of itself, while Leviticus 17:15 treats both equally. Paul claims that we are saved apart from works (Rom. 3:28), while James holds that faith without works cannot save (James 2:14) These contradictions raise questions which in turn require open discussion to answer. Without debate, the passages become meaningless, because meaning is not clear where there is apparent contradiction. I look forward to your rebuttal.
No one on this website can beat me in a roast sesssion.

You sicken me, you haven't even tried To me, it seems like you wanna get fried It's obvious that I'm the one who's got the knack Your jokes are totally out of whack Go home, boy, you're not even hard I can shuffle you like a playing card You say you're intense but you're not at all Heck, I can throw you against the wall You have no friends, you've had no success If you think you're ugly, the answer is yes Your clothes are rags, and you don't impress You'll never belong here, you're worthless You're out of the game, you've already lost Your reputation has been long since tossed Guess what?
No one on this website can beat me in a roast sesssion.

Yo my friend are trying to rap. lol you worthless piece of crap. yeah i can get intense. Your nothing but piece trash at the bottom of my shoe. You think you a mc but your the leftover kfc i ate for lunch. Im your master I walk you like golden retriever. Your fake not worth the puppet at the shop. If you are soft i reccomend you quit the dabate. Cuz i will make you cry like a baby.
No one on this website can beat me in a roast sesssion.

You say you've got the skillsThat you're the master of us allBut after this I'll make sureThat to your hole you'll crawlYou're probably no older than twelve years oldAnd now you're saying that I've been trolled?Your roasting "skills" are nothing more than jokes we laugh atIn fact, you even say I'm the one who's been spat atWell guess what? I'll put you in your placeYou'll run home crying cause you can't match my paceSorry son, I'm ahead of the raceDon't dare coming out 'cause you'll get chasedI'm a multi-billionaire with all the ladiesI have kings who serve me and I own ten MercedesI take down companies with all my homiesYou, you're no better than all those phoniesDon't bore me with your pathetic gagsAfter this, I'll guarentee you'll raise your white flagYou can't take me down, you've got nothing on meI assure you, I'll have you down on your kneesI'm given money because of my natural charmYou're a poor boy, you've always worked on a farmYou've gotten held back again and againMe, I graduated high school when I was tenYou come onto this saying you've got expertiseJeez, how are you gonna appeaseWhen you can only manage to tease?Seems to me you're out of placeGo get lost in those trees
No one on this website can beat me in a roast sesssion.

Look man i just gave you an example of roast session. Funny thing was you were suppose to be the smart one. Any ways i will define it since you lack learning ability's . roast session to make fun of one person with a series of comments by one or more people. To relentlessly ridicule someone over small things such as stupidity, ignorance, poor decision making(such as sleeping with that lagoon creature the other night), or being vary capable of missing sarcasm. now lets start the debate.
No one on this website can beat me in a roast sesssion.

First of all, I don't think you know how to debate. This site is for serious debaters, not for amateurs. Second, if you do want to make a special kind of debate, you could at least state in Round 1 what the rules of the debate are, so your opponent knows what to do in order to win. Most people don't know what a "roast session" is so defining the term at the beginning of the debate would be a good idea. In order to make a good debate, you need rules, or else your opponent will get the best of you.
shold guns be filled with marshmallows

While marshmallows will make guns less potent, it is undoubtable that guns themselves will become much harder to use if they filled marshmallows.By the time someone ate their way into the marshmallows to reach the guns, they'd be too full/fat to efficiently kill the target who had all that time to run away. I conclude that it is not guns that should be filled with marshmallows but mashmallows that should be filled with guns.
shold guns be filled with marshmallows

That's a ridiculous proposition and people would just make harder and better marshmallows to compensate.The faster the acceleration of something (m*s^-2) the larger its weight/force (kg*m*s^-2) [http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com...] hence Newton's second law is that the force applied in one direction is proportional to the speed moved in that direction. [http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com...]If you shot a marshmallow as fast as you did a bullet, as seen with pellets or paintball ammunition, it actually can severely damage and cause pain as well as bruising to the victim. Aimed at the eye it can blind and aimed at the testicles it can castrate.Aside from this, the resolution doesn't ask if filling guns with marshmallows is a valid idea in itself but rather if it shouldd be done. This leads to the point that since protecting all guns by hiding them within marshmallows is a far more efficient way to slow down access to guns and increase time for the victim/target to escape in time for the full/obese individual to catch them with the gun.Pro failed to address this and hence loses.
shold guns be filled with marshmallows

Dear tough Look if marshmallows were to be replaced with bullets and people started to eat the marshmallows while being shot at they wouldn't keep eating until they get obese and die or have a stroke or explode its physically impossible to keep eating marshmallows until you die. Maybe after like 50 marshmallows ypud probably feel sick and full and throw up. But what I meant by there beingarahmallows in guns was to replace the bullets so there would be no pointless deaths like in war or by some kid finding a gun in there parents draw or cupboard and accidentally shooting there siblings and killing them which actually happened to someone in America. In conclusion if marshmallows were to replace bullets than the world be a much safer place.