BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Was the American general Benedict Arnold a hero, Or a traitor? (Con ; Hero, Pro ; Traitor)

as i read through details on the american revolution once again, My interest in one benedict arnold has piqued. The debate on whether he should be hailed as a hero or condemned as a traitor is an old one, And yet one that has never been actually settled. It still won't, Most likely, But i am interested in hearing another person's opinion. personally, I believe benedict arnold is a traitor by definition. Call it a technicality, But he gave the british plans to west point for 20, 000 pounds (as well as command) and then proceeded to join the british army. He then proceeded to brutally kill his own countrymen in some twisted act of revenge. Though he had done many, Many things for the colonists and their army, It still doesn't nullify the things he did when he got a bit too bitter. all of this over a selfish desire for fame. His honor may have been slanted, But he shouldn't have had such a wacked-out concept of honor in the first place. None of the founding fathers were necessarily good people, Obviously, Nor were any of the members of the army, But it doesn't necessarily exempt benedict arnold from criticism by comparing him to the other men of his time. debate how you like. I don't mind, Just don't reply in droning single-sentence quips or something of the sort. Give me something rich.
The ten words writing challenge.

Each round I will give you ten words then you'll have to write a short story including those words. Rules: 1. No profanity 2. The short stories must be sensible. 3. No forfeiture. 4. No plagiarism. 5. You can add prefix and suffix to the words Voting rules: 1. Only award the better arguments point if you thought con's stories were good not because he was able to do it. 2. Only award the conduct point if anyone broke the rules. 3. No biases Words for this round: 1. Mountains 2. Shotgun 3. Xbox 4. War hammer 5. Bulldog 6. Grim reaper 7. Laugh 8. Turkey 9. Eaten 10. Ambridge
The importance of science and religion

Definitions: Science - a system that builds and organizes knowledge concerned with the physical world in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... Religion - "an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to the supernatural, and to spirituality" http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... Science has benefited mankind more due to the technological innovations and knowledge that it allows us to use in everyday life. My opponent argues in his opening that we need religion for the keeping of order and morals, even though this is not necessarily true. Morals and order can be kept without religion guiding our paths, as this is the purpose of government. Religion has played a role in a government and politics before, and still does today, but that does not mean that it needs to be in our systems of government in order for us to make choices concerning society. In fact, throughout history, the meddling of religion with government has caused many sufferings in the affairs of everyday people. Even though religion has helped natural philosophers in their scientific efforts, that does not mean religion is better than science. As science relies on tests and evidence to build knowledge. It differs greatly from religion, which relies on beliefs that do not rely on what can be tested. Maybe life isn't about anything, but if it is, science will show us what's going on. Something religion cannot be relied upon for.
The importance of science and religion

Which has benefited mankind more? Religion or science? Many would agree that science has due to the fact that religion has spawned wars and disagreements across the globe when we can all agree on science because it is a common ground for curiosity among everyone. But...where would science be without religion? Without religion, most scientific studies over the years would have nothing to argue with, thus replacing faith with more theories and even more questions with no answers. This would eventually lead to confusion and misunderstanding of why such theories or studies are really necessary. We think we know this.....now what? Religion kept order and moral standpoints for everyone in the past and it has been tradition ever since. The Church has played major roles in government and politics because the Church still believes in order and peace. It is the intolerant people that do not respect this code and ignore their conscience. Okay, I just had to get that clear out of the way. Just an example of science disproving religion is Aristotle vs. Copernicus. Aristotle believes that stars were heavenly bodies located beyond our solar system. Copernicus later challenged this theory along with a more important, but not very relative to my case, aspect of the theory not to be proved until later by Galileo after an advancement in technology.(Hence, science is important!) The Church and all of its followers finally could gaze up at the stars and wonder; "What else could be a lie?". It's a powerful question but a simple one to understand. Religion helped advance great philosophers in their takes on life. Maybe life is not about knowing, it's about understanding. This is faith. This is science. This is what life will always be like and it's impossible to change it.
The importance of science and religion

I would first like to apologize to my opponent and the voters for missing a round. My opponent skipped his round as well, so I will progress to his Round 2 argument. Definitions: faith - complete confidence or trust in something(1) belief - an acceptance that something is true or exists(2) You pose that human progress is stimulated by some sort of purpose. In this, you are very unspecific of what that purpose is, and you even call it a common purpose among all people. You are under the belief that people have a purpose in this world beyond living, or any purpose at all. There is no absolute purpose for which we are prescribed as, for the most part, it is defined by the individual, who then contributes to the commons, and in this way we could define a common purpose. It would only be an approximation. In fact, science is the best way to find our purpose, as it allows us to change the world around us. It is what allows for social progress. Religion does this in minute ways, whereas science can provide massive changes in what we do and how we act. If anything, it is subjective to say that religion is, "the one thing that any person can rely on to keep faith in discovery and reason as much as, if not more, than science." For many people, they need not rely on faith to believe in discovery, as it is happening all the time in many places on earth. We have freedom of religion to prevent one religion from oppressing another religion. Even then, oppression of others faiths still occurs. You state that those without religion we will not find a purpose and peace of mind. This is arguably false, as religion is not a requirement to have purpose or peace of mind within ones life. If there is faith in a religion, this does not make it more significant than the testing of theories concerning our world. We need science because of the benefits which it brings and religion lacks. Without science and religion, I would be able to communicate at approximately the speed of light with another person a thousand miles away. I would be ignorant and in the dark, with little knowledge of my surroundings. With religion but without science, we would be in a similar situation to the above depicted. We would know very little about the universe and it's workings. Thank you for participating in this debate. I once again apologize for missing round 2 and I wish all a happy day. (1)http://en.wikipedia.org... (2)http://en.wikipedia.org...
The importance of science and religion

As you are already well aware, science is needed for progress. It is proven in economics as much as it is for anything else. Religion is like this in a way. Human progression is spurred by a purpose; a common purpose that people drive towards for the same reason. Sure science is a purpose in itself but I bet we could never find OUR purpose through science. It is inevitable that we cannot, but it is in our blood that we strive to find answers. Where does religion come into play here? It is the one thing that any person can rely on to keep faith in discovery and reason as much as, if not more, than science. I agree with you on your reason why government has kept religion out of its way(I've taken AP government and politics), but you cannot use that as an excuse why religion isn't needed for order. The proof is in other countries. Why do we have freedom of religion? I think you know why. Look around, there are thousands of protestors fighting for their right to practice their religion every day because they need it. It fulfills them and gives them a reason to live. Others who do not need religion in their lives are never going to find a purpose and reach that peace of mind. Just know I am not against atheists or prejudice in any way.
MGTOW movement is good for men

ARGUMENT:My opponent has disagreed with the statement "MGTOW is just about feeling good to be a man."Did my opponent not say that MGTOW was about confidence and being content with yourself?"I think the MGTOW movement is good for men, it helps them to attempt to find confidence with in themselves and to be content with yourself. To not try and put so much happiness in another person and try to rely on them for everything."If the readers of this debate have not noticed, my opponent hs contradicted himself here. " Your whole view of yourself shouldn't come from just what other people think of you, but you should try to have a positive view of yourself as well."Wrong, your value is strictly determined by others. The value of your labor is determines your income. The value of your listening skills determines if people seek to tell you their problems. The value of your personality determines whether there will be five people or five thousand people attending you funeral when you die. Everything of significance is determined by other people."MGTOW preaches men should opt out of most relationships because of the opposite sex's sense of entitlement."And what makes my opponent believe men are not entitled? I would argue most people in modern America are entitled. They have the ability to get what they want with little to no effort without any real hardship. Then my opponent continues to make claims that women are entitled at the same time suggesting men are not. I would argue people without any sense of hardship want everyone else in the world to treat them as their parents did. This is unrealistic and a modern phenomena that exists among men and women.
MGTOW movement is good for men

ARGUMENT: So you say you MGTOW is just about feeling good to be a man? Well I'd like to disagree, I'd argue MGTOW is what you make it, at the root of it it's about trying to find comfort in not being in a relationship or trying to live up to high expectations of everyone else. What's wrong with something that motivates you to have enough confidence in yourself to want to raise your own self esteem instead of going out of your way to find someone else who will do it? I personally believe that to be very psychologically damaging to a person. Your whole view of yourself shouldn't come from just what other people think of you, but you should try to have a positive view of yourself as well. A common reason men go MGTOW is because of not 1 but many relationships and a failed marriage or 2 maybe even more. It's not about being proud to be born your gender, it's about being comfortable with yourself in general. MGTOW preaches men should opt out of most relationships because of the opposite sex's sense of entitlement. i. e. my wallet, a home, and all the say so of what to do with the child if we have one, and all I'm getting is the satisfaction of knowing I'm with you, because society says I should appreciate the fact I'm with anyone, because the odds are stacked up against men when it comes to things like the law. It's men going through life their own way and ignoring society norms. Like males shouldn't cry and adhere to everyone woman's high standards.
MGTOW movement is good for men

As Con, I will show how MGTOW is not good for men. I think it would of been better if my opponent explained what MGTOW was but I will since he hasn't. I will stick to adding the quick explanation of what MGTOW is based off of one of the leading MGTOW websites. What is MGTOW:"M. G. T. O. W – Men Going Their Own Way – is a statement of self-ownership, where the modern man preserves and protects his own sovereignty above all else[1]"[1]. http://www.mgtow.com...ARGUMENT:MGTOW is essentially a self-esteem movement or a "feel good" movement. Therefore by default it is not good for men. MGTOW is a movement that implies someone should take pride in being a man. Why should someone take pride in something they had little choice in being? According to MGTOW's logic, a person should be happy for being themselves. How is that good for anyone? MGTOW is one of the many movements existing on the planet earth which tell people to be proud in what they are rather than what they do. MGTOW tells men to be proud of being men for simply being born men. This is nothing short of an unaccomplished and unearned sense of entitlement movement which encourages self-congratulation to say the least.
MGTOW movement is good for men

Round 1: state your argument for (if you're on the pro side) or against (if you're on the con side) this is a warm up round. We're not participating for points, however it is required to make valid arguments and keep to the subject. This round is intended to be a warm up. Round 2: Is the rebuttal stage of the argument, where the real debate begins and Pro and Con try to shoot down the other's argument. Pro will go first then Con will be allowed to make their argument. Round 3: Is the second stage of making arguments, same as round one Pro and Con will state their arguments for the opposing side. This round will be one where participation is everything, and we are actually working for points. Round 4: Is the second stage of making a rebuttal, where pro and con will try to shoot down the opposing side's previous arguments. The best rebuttal wins. Point system: The way the points will be distributed here is by who ever come up with best rebuttal. As well as how they conduct themselves, and how well the judges think they performed in this debate. Points will be deducted for drifting far off subject. Trying to use personal feelings to ignore any/all logic argument, as well as any fallacious statements made during this debate. -1 point(s) get taken for any round forfeited by either opposing party, including round 1, however round 1 does not gain any points they can only be taken away. Failure to follow the rules is -3 points off. Accept the challenge only if you agree to these guidelines, the contender will be taking the position of CON and will make arguments supporting anything AGAINST the discussion. Please follow rules accordingly. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ ARGUMENT: I think the MGTOW movement is good for men, it helps them to attempt to find confidence with in themselves and to be content with yourself. To not try and put so much happiness in another person and try to rely on them for everything.
MGTOW movement is good for men

ARGUMENT:"Humans walk away from unprofitable actions."Not true. Victims of slavery or human trafficking don't walk away from unprofitable actions[1]. People also tend to value businesses that have negative earning because they receive some visceral benefit[2].[1]http://www.polarisproject.org...[2]http://www.dummies.com..."Marriage, of the equivalent, is now a dangerous burden, and a liability to men at least that's how it is in modern times, as the laws are stacked against men in things like marriage."This is one of the reasons why I claim that MGTOW is an entitlement movement MGTOW advocates are under the belief that marriage was not a liability to men. I disagree with this profusely. Men don't need marriage. Women need marriage because they become pregnant and bear children. Men do not become pregannt nor bear children so there benefits from marriage are insignficant compared to the woman's benefits. Marriage allows partners to merge their assets andprofits together for a common purpose. Men have always recieved far less benefits from these relationships due to the biological differences between men and women. Therefore, marriage has always been more burdensome on men compared to women."When a man walks away from women, he's walking away from state interference with relationships. He walks into a life that allows him to work less, and keep more. What he does keep, fewer people can take from him on a whim."Why does a man need to join a movement in order to do what he wishes? "All he is doing is acting on his own, measurable, objective reality."This is contradictory argument on the part of my opponent. He claims men should act on their own at the same time they should disavow feminism. If a man wants to embrace modern feminism, why shouldn't he? Is he not acting on his own?"If marriage became a safe, viable, profitable proposition for men, MGTOW might stay as a means of dealing with other crap society expects of men, but they'd relax on the single status part of it."What would make a safe and sane marriage? If we observe my opponent's arguments, he has not shown how MGTOW offers any practical solutions to the things he has declared as problems. Instead, my opponent has suggested that we just go our own way. How is going our own way solving anything? Turning our back on a problem does not fix the problem. MGTOW is not good for men because it is simply a state that "we are men going our on way." MGTOW does not offer solutions or even a practical understanding of the problems of which they are reacting to. Notice not once in any of my opponent's arguments does he show how MGTOW offers any solutions.MGTOW is a reactionary entitlement fit for men who are proud of being men simply because of the fact they are born men. MGTOW is not good for men nor is any other movement that encourages an unearned sense of entitlement.If you believe MGTOW is not good for men after reading these arguments, Vote Con please. Thanks to my opponent for hosting this debate.
MGTOW movement is good for men

I think MGTOW is a response to the current wave of feminism. The current wave of feminism with tumblr feminists with entitlement complexes, political correctness issued controlled by Marxist-like feminists, and feminists searching for alleged "sexism" in video games is nothing short of extremism spewed by zealots. MGTOW is a response to this. As a response to the current wave of feminism MGTOW is just about as extreme. MGTOW declares that men should go their own way just as MGTOW means "Men Going Their Own Way." However, what premise do they have that previously men weren't going their own way? MGTOW appears to be men who feel entitled to having women behave a certain way.
MGTOW movement is good for men

MGTOW is a natural reaction to a real situation; it is the conscious realization of a naturally existing phenomenon.Humans walk away from unprofitable actions. Marriage, of the equivalent, is now a dangerous burden, and a liability to men at least that's how it is in modern times, as the laws are stacked against men in things like marriage.Feminism set out to achieve this, and they got it.I doubt groups like feminists realized that by reducing the value of women to men, that men would, at some point, just walk away.But that is just one aspect of MGTOW. When a man walks away from women, he's walking away from state interference with relationships. He walks into a life that allows him to work less, and keep more. What he does keep, fewer people can take from him on a whim.More than just women, he's walking away from a corrupted state and society, that expect him to be a compliant host for parasites. All he is doing is acting on his own, measurable, objective reality. If marriage became a safe, viable, profitable proposition for men, MGTOW might stay as a means of dealing with other crap society expects of men, but they'd relax on the single status part of it.
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

Let's take slapstick comedy, you shout loud, the audience that's paid to laugh and others may laugh along, even kids.Sarcasm is saying the total opposite of the truth, is more difficult to decipher than any other humor type as it is literlaly stating a total lie as fact and often can result in frustration at the faked stupidity or outrageous comment by the "comedian" .
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

Pro holds primary burden of proof to prove that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit but I have the secondary burden of proof to prove that there exists forms of wit less worthy of being 'wit' than sarcasm. I am not allowed to take the attack that all forms of wit are equal nor that wit doesn't truly exist. Pro is not allowed to take the attack that they are sarcastically winning the debate by debating the Con side and forcing me to either debate for them or lose. Sarcasm as a form of wit is not the same thing as sarcasm as a form of winning a debate unfairly. Accepting this debate means you have read these terms and conditions along with Debate. org's Terms of Use. Failure to abide by these will only harm the abuser as voter's are bound to notice. I will add an extra rule in case of rule breakage. The rule is that the abusive side's opponent must still continue in a civil manner and put full effort into continuing the debate no matter what their opponent does but that the rules nonetheless apply in the voting period and penalties are to be given.