BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religion should have no part in law

I'm afraid you have not responded to any of my requests to answer which religions law is right or should be introduced and the issues around existing religious claims against such things as homosexuality and slavery. I still do not see how the first 4 items on the 10 commandments has anything to do with the law as it stands now or as it could ever stand, they have no baring on society in any way shape or form other than on theists who practice (in part) any claim that honouring your father and mother is a theistic right and part of law is frankly outrageous, I am an atheist and every love and respect for my mother and father come completely from their upbringing of me, the time and effort and love they have given to me which I then pass back to them and onto others. It's part of my morality, the nurture and nature. I find no element of the bible that helps law that I would not otherwise find as a human who has been brought up by people who show love and kindness which I then pass that same love, kindness and respect to the people I meet. Legality comes down to morality and fairness both of which I and I would argue theist and non theist fine without the need for religion. My closing statement to you, is simply that, we need law to govern those of us that find greed or have wrong done to us in the past which have lead them to a corrupt or unlawful and badly guided morality, I put these down to the bad nurture for a person. Religion only claims to jump onto trying to lay claim to the nurture and nature elements that are naturally inbuilt. I have not heard one claim from you where religion has brought anything new to the table for law and order than is not inherently part of our natural morality as outlined in my previous statements, and as such I feel you have not made any opposing statements to counter my argument. I do thank you though for being my first debate
Religion should have no part in law

Good points, but allow me to continue. You claimed in your aforementioned arguments that the first six items on the Ten Commandments have no direct correlation to morality. But this is a false claim. I'd like to clarify the etymology of morals: Moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character I want to project the fact that every point is drawn from the moral Christian ideology, and thus, they are all compartmentalized in the set of beliefs and dogmas respected by theologians. Evidently, you have misconstrued my previous point. My claim was that morality paved the road for law, as morality is the respect and acknowledgment of certain principles presented by a higher ruler, and law is analogous; law is defined by whether or not something is ethically right or wrong. Religion constitutes moral principles, as described by the Ten Commandments. The first point described in the Ten Commandments, 'You shall have no other gods before Me' emphasizes the moral identity of fidelity and faithfulness to a single deity, and address him as your highness. The second, third and forth points follow the same logistical thinking. The fifth point is to 'Honour your father and mother' which once again addresses the emphasized notion of fidelity and respect of one's parents, who rightfully gave birth to you and gave you life. You are morally bound by theologian terms to respect and deeply honor one's father and mother as they are fully responsible for your education, upbringing and future. This effectively debunks your claim. Thank you.
Religion should have no part in law

Religion is ultimately a weapon to be implemented into judicial decisions because without the birth of religion, theology and Buddhism, there would be no morals, virtues or principles to discern. The Ten Commandments was a series of ten principles that were brought down from the summit of Mount Sinai by Moses. He was the incarnate of God at the time of this, and the people entrusted their lives in him. In Christian theology, this is believed to be the birth of 'morals' that God almighty had bestowed upon the peoples of Israel. The Israelites had pledged unconditional fidelity to God, his teachings and his ethical ways and thus accepted the Arc of the Covenant with great humility (discussed in the Book of Exodus). Henceforth, law has an inextricable connection to the peoples, morals and principles and a man or woman's fate should not be per se dictated by reason and justification.
Death Penalty

I will be proposing four reasons why the Death Penalty should not be utilized in the United States.Human ErrorHumans make mistakes, so it is very possible that the wrong person could get persecuted for a crime. There are many reasons that there would be an error in picking the correct person. There is a lot of pressure put upon persecutors by the community when there is a particularly brutal crime, such as a rape/murder. The increased pressure can cause the prosecutor to make hasty decisions when deciding the verdict so as to appease the need for justice, which can result in the wrong person being put on death row.[1] Putting someone completely innocent to death is a risk that cannot be taken.Lack of DeterrenceThe threat of the death penalty does not often stop people from committing the crimes that could get them put on death row. People who are in a fit of fear or rage, under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, or have a mental disability which causes them to commit the crime are very unlikely to think about the possibility of being executed.[2] As recent as 2011, the murder rate has actually been higher in states that utilized the death penalty.[3] This shows a lack of the death penalty actually deterring crimes, which defeats one of it's main purposes. CostThe procedures and trials that must take place in a death penalty case take longer, and are therefore more costly than the average life without parole (LWOP) case. For example, in Colorado, it takes six times more days to settle a capital case than a LWOP case.[4] That, in turn, causes the price to be exponentially higher. The average cost for a federal case in which the death penalty is being sought is $620,932. That is about eight times more expensive than the average federal case where the death penalty is not an element.[4] Though the means of carrying out the execution itself can be considered reasonably priced, the procedures that precede the execution are very expensive. HypocrisyPeople may see it fit that someone who killed someone should be killed, but wouldn't that mean that the person who carried out the execution of the guilty party deserves to be killed as well? The argument, “an eye for an eye” seems like it makes sense, but in reality, the people carrying out the death penalty would be no better than the person who was executed. It is hypocritical to punish someone for murder by killing them. The death penalty contradicts its motives. Sources:[1]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... I: The Danger of Mistaken Executions [2]http://www.amnestyusa.org...[3]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[4]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
The United States Should Submit to the ICC to prosecute crimes against humanity

As my opponent has forfeited the last two rounds, I shall briefly (really quickly this time, I promise) restate my points. Aff Case: 1) International law gives people rights. 2) International courts can deter crimes against humanity by making global leaders accountable. 3) International courts encourage countries to work together. Neg Case (My Rebuttals) 1) Neg neither shows that National Sovereignty is desirable, nor refutes my claim that it is sometimes necessary to lose sovereignty. 2) Neg never shows her side to be the moral side (based on her definition of 'ought'), whereas I show that Aff is moral. 3) International courts do not completely remove national sovereignty; this only occurs if a national leader performs a crime against humanity and the nation fails to prosecute him. 4) The ICC contains an appeals process, and just because it selects those participating in the trial does not mean they are biased. Biased judges/juries can be appealed. 5) Neg's claims that international law is inconsistent with local standards fail. We are talking about big crimes, which we can all agree on a penalty for. We are not talking about petty theft. 6) The ICC offers protections similar to the US Constitution. 7) The ICC does not violate the American principles. The ICC's laws agree with the basic human concept of justice. The qualms that the U.S. had with the British government in the 1700s are not present in the ICC. Actually, the ICC is for the American (and global) principle of justice. 8) While laws may vary from place to place, it is important to establish international norms of justice. Thank you for reading, and please vote Aff!
Euthanasia:Mercy Killing

There are a few problems with that. One, it's not entirely possible to determine consent, and if consent is invalidly determined, it can't be fixed. People in immense suffering and struggle can claim they want to die when in reality, they're just in lots of pain. I'm not sure why you made that claim about depression either. Immense pain versus depression is a subjective value judgment. Two, euthanasia can be manipulated as an excuse to get away with murder from what I just said. People can deliberately misinterpret "consent" as an excuse to kill someone for one's own good. Three, a "right to die" suggests tolerance for social alienation. That is a government could behave negligently because it could say, "Our people have the right to leave if they don't like living under our rule of law." It also allows parents to get off the hook from assimilating their children into society. They can say, "If our kids hate being alive, they can kill themselves." Overall, there's an issue of due diligence at stake. Tolerating a right to die allows for due diligence to be neglected, and is a conflict of interest against citizens who have a right to exist in a respectful society.
Euthanasia:Mercy Killing

I feel that if a person who is on life support, but doesn't want to live should be granted the rights to be euthanized. Death is a right that all humans are granted, but those who can't like Ramon Sampedro, who was a quadraplegic for 28 years and want to die with dignity, should have the right to choose if they want to live or not. Only you make the choices for your own life (after you're out of your parents care of course). Now if people who get depressed want to use euthanasia to kill themselves, that's just wrong and stupid. If you're depressed just get help.
Tarzan Would Win in A Fight Against Bruce Lee

Tarzan is still human, and cannot surpass the limits of the human musculature and skeletal system. If he was actually fighting gorillas, he'd be dead, considering they can easily break human bones. I'd say they either recognized him as a weakling and went easy on him, or simply excluded him from the fights. Tarzan also has no formal training, and is not used to fighting human opponents. Seeing as Bruce Lee can punch holes in standard punching bags, I doubt Tarzan can tank many hits from him. Bruce Lee also has years of martial arts training, specifically designed for taking down human opponents.
Tarzan Would Win in A Fight Against Bruce Lee

Who Would Win In A Fight? Tarzan vs Bruce Lee People/Character Variations- Tarzan: "Real Tarzan" or any interpretations from the original story to the newest of motion pictures. Bruce Lee: 'Actual' person. Bruce Lee should be thought of in his most prime and on his A-Game. Environment: UFC Cage Rules/Stipulations [1] No weapons. [2] Opponents are not allowed to leave the UFC cage. [3] No interference. [4] No holds barred. Stipulation to Win: Last Man Standing/Alive. [My Argument] Is as follows; Though I would respect the argument of anyone who so chooses to take the side of Bruce Lee as he is without a shadow of a doubt, an excellent contender and would undoubtedly give any opponent a run for their money ; after long and careful consideration I would need to personally bet on Tarzan winning this fight. Among the laundry list of reasons as to why I say this; I will mention these couple of things first that I believe gives Tarzan the edge, hands down. Firstly, Tarzan was raised in the jungle, among the animals in nature. Not just any animals; but Gorillas. A quick look through the naturalized habits of these primates will lead you to find their dominant 'alpha' elements and challenges among males of the species. When researching Tarzan you will come to find that he literally grew up wrestling these animals (for fun) but also; getting an actualized beating by the alpha of the group on a daily basis until, alas; Tarzan won. Tarzan, I believe, wins based on his animalistic attributes as he employs sheer dominance and brute strength over Bruce Lee. Though Tarzan's "training" wouldn't be considered a typical education in the art like Bruce Lee's formal education in martial arts; I do believe that natural instinct would prevail. Tarzan IS the animal and he's done the field work whereas Bruce Lee merely likes to make-believe he has learned animal styles. And even if so; has not literally put them into practice as Tarzan has. Even in pretending a worst case scenario were to occur, I cannot in good faith say that Bruce Lee could do enough significant damage to Tarzan to floor him (or worse) as mentioned; Tarzan grew up being pulverized by Gorillas. So he knows how to absorb mass impact as well and take it like a champ. I will leave this here for now, but I repeat; this is just the first and most simple of arguments. Point being... At the end of the day; Tarzan walks always from this cage match; no doubt.
The international community should provide more concrete support to French intervention in Mali.

I hope you do not forfeit the next round. I would like to elaborate some more. True, terrorists are potentially a threat to the whole world. But does it mean the French need reinforces? The American troops are already there, and America has the world's most developed military technologies, with advanced fighter jets and aircraft carriers. Terrorists does not mean that we need a full-scale war. War causes causalities, confusion and property loss. It breaks families apart and loosen the ties between friends.
The international community should provide more concrete support to French intervention in Mali.

Yes, I accept your challenge. What are the rules for this debate? Meanwhile, here are my arguments: 1. As the topic says, French "intervention". Mali is not a part of France, so there is no good reason for sending troops there. True, we should work together to achieve world peace, but does the French army really need international support? The French army is equipped with the newest weapons and most recently updated technology. Sending more troops there from other countries will only add to the confusion. 2. When countries send armies to other countries, they don't really do it for a good purpose. some do it to paint a nice image of "world peace protector" and some do it to gain things such as minerals and oil fields. Sending more armies also increases the death toll. They will be secretly battling against each other for the oil fields and minerals. 3. As said in argument 1, Mali is not a part of France. There is no obligation and the French is not duty bound to send troops. Intervention in other countries cause domestic problems, such as America's intervention in territory disputes between China and Japan which caused the relationship between China and America to deteriorate. This does not make a harmonious and peaceful world.
Evolution does not disprove God

Pro has agreed to the definitions I provided in R1, so they shall be accepted for the course of this debate.Secondly, the focus of this debate is not whether a deity exists or whether evolution is true. The focus of the debate, based on the resolution and the accepted definitions, is whether evolution contradicts the existence of the God of the Jewish and Christian bible.I will keep my argument short and simple. I could simply argue that there is no evidence for this God to begin with, however it is much simpler to argue that there is evidence contradicting the existence of this God instead. This evidence comes in the form of the theory of evolution, which we have accepted as being true for this debate.My opponent has devoted much of his argument to proving the need for a deity. As I stated above, this is not needed, and I will not deny that another source may have been needed for life to be created. I will, however, maintain that evolution itself works without the necessity for a divine being [1].Because the God my opponent is defending was defined as the God of the bible, this God would have created Earth through the process described in Genesis. Genesis describes a process of creation that took only six days [2]. This is an obvious contradiction: The source of information on the God who's existence my opponent must prove contradicts directly with the scientific record of the history of life on Earth. This scientifically measured age is approximately 4.54 billion years [3]. There is a huge difference between 6 days and 4.45 billion years. This is not only accepted by the scientific community, but by my opponent as well. "Evolution is a multi-billion year process."Another contradiction is that Genesis, the source of information on the biblical God, states that God created humans [2]. The theory of evolution states that humans evolved from another species over billions of years. If God created humans "in his own image," then they would not have evolved from another species. So far, I have only highlighted a couple of contradictions that exist between the God of the bible and evolution. I believe this is quite enough to make it apparent to readers, and to my opponent, that the scientific and biblical accounts are very different.. One claims that the world is billions of years old, claims that the world was created in just six days. One claims that evolution is the driving force behind the present diversity of life on earth. The other makes no mention of evolution and claims that God created it all. We all know which account science supports: Evolution. Thus, if evolution is true, the biblical account cannot be true. If the biblical account is false, then the God of the bible is false.I am interested in seeing how my opponent will respond to this argument. Sources:[1]- http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]- http://www.biblegateway.com...[3]- http://en.wikipedia.org...
Evolution does not disprove God

I will allow Pro to begin the actual debating in the next round and I will use this round to define several terms and make clarifications. Definitions:God- the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe [1]. God will refer to the God of the Jewish and Christian bible. Evolution- change in the gene pool of a population fromgeneration to generation by such processes as mutation,natural selection, and genetic drift [2]. Disprove- to invalidate [3]. For the purpose of this debate, neither side will have to prove the scientific theory of evolution, it will be accepted as true for this debate. This is a topic that I have been thinking about recently so I look forward to an interesting debate. Sources:[1]- . http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]- . http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]- . http://dictionary.reference.com...
It is Better to be Upfront and Honest about Yourself, than to Fake Yourself and Hide.

Being fake might get you a date but at what cost? presenting yourself differently than what you're really like lies to the other person about what they are in for, and therefore makes a long lasting relationship much less likely or stable. instead of acting like someone else it is best to act like yourself and if they cannot fall in love with that, then it wouldn't of worked anyway. It's like cat fishing on tinder.
Collectivism vs. Individualism

Full Resolution: On balance, Collectivism is preferable to IndividualismTEAM DEBATE !!!PRO team-- Romanii-- UniferousCON team-- Famousdebater-- Hayd== Rules ==1. First round for acceptance. No new arguments or rebuttals in the final round2. By accepting the debate, Con agrees to the following definitions...Collectivism: the philosophy that the interests of society as a whole should be considered ethically paramount.Individualism: the philosophy that the interests of the individual should be considered ethically paramount.3. Burden of Proof is shared. Pro must show that Collectivism is preferable to Individualism, and Con must show that Individualism is preferable to Collectivism.4. No semantics, kritiks, trolling, etc.Let the games begin!
Denmark committed atrocities during the conquest of Greenland.

I accept. We will use these definitions for atrocities and conquest. Atrocities: a"troc"i"ty əG2;tr"sitē noun plural noun: atrocities an extremely wicked or cruel act, typically one involving physical violence or injury. Conquest: con"quest G2;k"nG6;kwest,G2;k"NG- noun The subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by use of military force.
Denmark committed atrocities during the conquest of Greenland.

http://upload.wikimedia.org...Look at Greenland from 1754 to 1885 -- notice how in the beginning the presence is Norse and limited to the coast, by 1822 and 1885, the whole island is taken over by Danish conquest. That implies that conquest indeed did happen. Has to. This is common knowledge.Now another thinghttp://en.wikipedia.org...;(Danish atrocities)Also lack of representation. Ruling over an entire island at their expense. That is oppression. It goes against the UN articles.
YUGIOH! is better than Magic the gathering

I don't hate magic the gathering, and yes it may be targeted for my age group and older, but I grew up with yugioh and in playing the game I find yugioh to be better because the abilities of the monsters, spell and trap cards are better than the creatures, instants and artifacts of magic the gathering. true magic has been around longer, but can you justify them for sueing konami and making them change the name from magic to spell cards? come on! how much of a baby did they have to be to do that. and what about that summoning sickness crap that you have to deal with when you summon a creature? also you can't attack your opponents creatures, you have to attack them and then they can choose to block with their creatures? what the F is that! and finallly what are you talking about encyclopedia and computer? the computer is easier to use than the encyclopedia and children would be more inclined to use a computer than an encyclopedia. but i am not talking about those objects, i am proving that yugioh is better than magic.
YUGIOH! is better than Magic the gathering

What you say is true. YUGIOH does have a TV show watched by many children, and does say 6+ on the package whereas MTG has 13+ on the card packs. It is simpler and faster paced. Therefore, we can conclude that YUGIOH is aimed for children. If it is aimed for children, its obviously going to be more popular among children while MTG is more popular among teens and adults. As you stated, MTG is more complex than YUGIOH, allowing for more strategy to be applied and a more competitive level of play. Which is better, an encyclopedia where you must look up the information by hand, or the more complex tool, the computer, where all the information you want is at a click of the button.