BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Depopulation is not a conspiracy theory.

1 - When an individual can fully interpret "fractional reserve banking"they can appreciate where we are now: US Debt Clock real time : http://www.usdebtclock.org... Borrowing 1 dollar this year only to borrow 2 dollars next year to pay the first one back. That's clearly outlined. 2 - The fake great depression was pivotal in the separating of classes and the spawning of many programs. The only one I'm concerned with is public education: The True Story of Public Education in America http://www.huffingtonpost.com... The Failure of American Public Education http://fee.org... 3 - The connection is very clear. I've had 5 emails from my blog where all this is posted in agreement. 4 - I'm not responsible if you missed it: https://youtu.be... 5 - When the food is controlled and modified with no transparency and no accountability to anyone? Excuse me if I chuckle. https://youtu.be... 6 - I'm not going to open a new debate, I'm going to support the statement I initially made. #5's video ads such support. I'm not a debater, I'm an electrical systems engineer. *The whole point of this is to draw attention to your way of thinking and my own. I want individuals to view this dialogue, research and draw their own conclusions. 7 - Off topic to you yet many feel violated by unwarranted intrusive behavior on the part of the "powers that be". 7a- Preludes to depopulation or mass incarcerations: Obama Signs into Law Indefinite Detention of Americans without trial: http://tinyurl.com... Obama signs Executive Order enabling seizure of food, water, property and people during times of war and "peace". Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness: https://www.whitehouse.gov... That's right during times of "Peace". 9 - 13 Since you don't find the supporting statements, evidence to be valid, does that render it invalid? To the people that view my blog and those who write often, don't over load my email...smiles. Pro or con, you know me, I want to read your words. I like seeing how others think. At times it affirms my position and at other times it draws me to a different perspective. Please take the time to view my sources of information and feel free to condemn, condone or simply let them be. My core desire is for you to, "Think"! Don't let anyone be your guide, think! *For my close friends that know my entire story, we can talk one on one. I have enough problems coming back into the states as it is. SysNica.blogspot.com SystemsNicaragua.com
Depopulation is not a conspiracy theory.

Rebuttals: 1.A secret meeting amongst bankers which resulted in the forming of the Federal Reserve is off topic from depopulation. 2.Again, whether the Great Depression occurred or not is off topic. Though, I'd have great interest in debating this subject at another time. 3.Public education, social slavery and its causal relationship to a conspiracy of depopulation; there's no connection. 4.I watch this video a few times; nowhere in it was a mention of a population cap. Again a non-starter toward the topic at hand. Aaron Russo/Nick Rockefeller claims are also highly contentious (1,2,3). 5.Watched the video. Please connect how corporate greed and food chain monopolization has to do with planned depopulation. 6.All your points regarding food production have merit. I grow my own organic veggies and avoid processed food. But, what does this have anything to do with a "concerted and organized endeavor" to depopulate. Maybe if you post a new debate with the heading Our Food is Killing Us, we can stay on point. 7.Off topic 8." " (link inoperable) 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, I won't deny that much of what you have presented gives pause for thought; but what does it have to do with a planned depopulation of the Earth? All points are toward corporate greed, food chain monopolization, influenced government and lack of accountability. I have looked at presented You Tube Videos and films that are non-topical. There are no scholarly studies or government statistical references to give credible evidence that there is a conspiracy. Free speech is a wonderful thing. But keep in mind, just because something is stated on You Tube, that also has cat and pimple popping videos, doesn't make it true. People have written books that the Holocaust didn't occur, does it make it true? I can go on You Tube tomorrow or make a short film on being abducted by alien lizard people. The UFO aficionados would have a field day but, do I have any science or data to back up my claims? From 1900 through to the latest census, longevity rates have risen from 47.9 years for men, 50.7 women, to 75.1 men, 80.2 years for women. I don't see a planned population kill off occurring (4). You also failed to address the counter-productiveness to economic theory and purchasing power of these evil products you allude to being placed in our system for the purpose of depopulation. I will now swing this back to you. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org... 2. reference link cannot be posted here due to some kind of DDO profanity filter. Please see the link or title it in comments. 3. https://en.wikipedia.org... ( no Nick Rockefeller listed) 4. http://www.cdc.gov...
Depopulation is not a conspiracy theory.

Thank you for posting this debate. I look forward to an interesting conversation. Your premise is just that, a conspiracy theory (1). This rumor has been circulating since the 70s. The production of tobacco, alcohol, OTCs and the rest are produced due to public demand and for corporate profits, not for the goal of reducing the world's population. This would be counter-productive to economic theory and development. From 1975 through 2005 (1, 2, 3) there has been a stabilization of populations in developed countries. In some countries, Russia, Estonia, Hungary and Ukraine there has been negative population growth. The more developed a country the fewer children are produced; and this is equalized with death rates with extended longevity due to better nutrition and healthcare advancements. This is due to cost of living in urban areas and the expense of advanced education of children. Between 1965 and 1970 (1) we had a global growth rate of 2.1% per year. At present, we have a growth rate of 1.3% per year. There are higher rates of population growth in underdeveloped countries due the manual labor factor in low skill jobs, and the need more hands in non-mechanized agriculture. As under developed countries become more developed birth rates are expected to significantly decline over time (4). With these population points in mind, think what segment of the population is purchasing tobacco products, alcohol, OTCs, receiving prescription drugs and consuming high fat high sugar processed foods? It is not the poor subsistence farmers or $2.00 a day laborers in third world countries. These people simply cannot afford these types of goods, nor are they available in poor rural areas. In developed countries, it's a matter of supply and demand. There is more disposable income for non-essential convenience and luxury products, as well as medicines that alleviate pain or cure illnesses due to a higher level of medical care available. 1.http://rationalwiki.org... 2.http://www.globalchange.umich.edu... 3.https://www.census.gov... 4.http://www.census.gov...
The problem of Slytherin

Resolved: The portrayal of Slytherin House in the Harry Potter books, on balance, detracts from the series as a whole. For the purposes of the debate, only information contained in the original series (not Pottermore or the movies) is canon. I am affirming. The first round is for acceptance, second for constructives, and third and fourth for rebuttals. No new arguments in the last round. I look forward to the debate!
There is value for people and/or the world in atheism being promoted

Hello, Thanks for accepting the challenge. I agree with you that the non-religious are just as capable of being good and moral than the religious and you gave a great example with Japan. One of the lowest murder rates in the world despite the fact the majority of people don't associate with an organized religion. Promoting only one view of anything will do more harm than good but that argument does not mean atheism has to be promoted. It could mean different strains of Christianity should be promoted or other religions to counter Christianity. If the argument is that promoting atheism is good because it will mean more atheists and thus more good in the world then I respectfully disagree. The big problems in the world would will still be there, poverty, disease, acne, car crashes, serial killers, most wars and even child abuse. That heinous crime exists outside of the walls of the church as well. The level of certain suffering would go up because religious people tend to give more to charity and volunteer. That is if the atheistic movement did not put in place the infrastructure to foster giving and volunteerism like the church has done. The existence of the faith community is cited as one of the many reasons the Seventh-Day Adventists tend to live longer in California than others and so without religion what would happen. Some of the issues in Africa and the Middle-East are more caused by historical reasons. For example, Muslims and Christians in some parts of the world do genital mutilation. Muslims and Christians in other parts of the world tend not to do it. It seems to be more about the history of the place than the religions. Pew Research found a high number of Muslims supported killing people for leaving the faith and suicide bombing but only in a small number of places like Afghanistan and Palestinian territories. I think that is very significant. It seems to show it is not so much the religion that is making people hard-line bombers but more the context of where they are. Is it any wonder that there would be a lot of hardliners in a country like Afghanistan that was run and is still run in many places by hardliners. Is it any wonder that there is support for bombings in war zones. So promoting atheism is not really the solution or the only solution to some of the contextual issues. The Southern Poverty Law Centre also notes all of the terrorism or attempted terrorism committed by right-wing nuts in America and they don't seem to usually be religious-driven. There is a lot driven by anti-government people and racists. Becoming an atheist does not automatically mean that one is going to be pro-reason in all aspects of life. One can still hold misconceptions, other ideologies, having personal experiences cloud judgement and politicians supporting ineffective policies despite evidence showing that the policies are not good ones. There will still be people making irrational decisions like doing something they know is bad for them or being scared to fly but okay with driving even though the latter is more unsafe.
There is value for people and/or the world in atheism being promoted

As anyone with any life experience or sense of history knows religious people are more than capable of committing sins and crimes, and non religious people are more than capable of being moral and trustworthy citizens and friends. To promote only one view of anything will do more harm than good. For example, to promote that Christianity is the one true religion could cause retaliation from radicalized terrorist groups. I will agree with you that the this world would've been a better place if it had not been for the atheistic regimes of the 20th century. However, with that being said, in the 21st century, we have seen religious individuals commit awful acts of violence. I would say even more so than individuals who are non religious. People in general know right from wrong. There are certain cultures like the Taliban who are clearly wrong about almost everything of interest. We are talking about a society in which women and girls are treated like property, forced to live in clothed bags, not educated(12% literacy rate among women in Afghanistan). When some girls do get defiant or led out of this captivity because of the influence of the west, you have men who do want to kill or throw acid in their face for the crime to trying to learn to read. You get this whole complex of sadistic and misguided form of morality which many people are slow to judge in the west. I am making a claim that this is wrong and it is objectively wrong because it is objectively true to say that throwing acid in the face of a little girl for the crime to learning how to read is leading nowhere worth going in the space of possible experience. This is leaning to unnecessary human misery, for everyone(This is because of religious dogma). If we know anything about human well being or if we will ever know anything about human well being we are in a position to look at this economically, sociologically, physiologically, this is worthless. We see in Japan where the majority of people aren't religious that are caring, and loving... I'm a Christian so it is hard for me to have a response. I'm playing Devil's advocate here. Sorry. Haha Looking forward to your response.
There is value for people and/or the world in atheism being promoted

I argue probably not although happy to be proven wrong. Promoting a view that only offers an absence of belief in God is not likely to do much good especially when the stereotype of the unthinking, brainwashed religious person set free with atheism to become a reasonable person is not accurate. It is also not accurate to argue the world would be a significantly better place without religion because the majority of problems in the world are not caused by religion. Round 1: Arguments. Round 2: Rebuttals/ more arguments. Round 3: Closing statements.
There is value for people and/or the world in atheism being promoted

You believe in objective morality which comes from God. So if you believe the argument that objective morality is a good thing and can only exist with a God then promoting atheism is presumably not viewed as a good thing. I believe you can be moral and believe in things like absolute truth without there being a God so I would not use that argument. I still don't see however a huge benefit in promoting atheism not because of any anti-atheistic view point but what is the point. Would it make people more/less moral? Would it make the world a better place or worse place? Not really. {Bar a few specific examples in the world the world would pretty much be the same as now. So it brings me back to my original point about is there value in promoting atheism {compared to just being one}. Thanks for the debate. All the best.
If a God is Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent, then Free Will Does Not Exist

You're just mad because it's so easy to make a joke out of it. Maybe if you weren't such a child that puts more work into what they cannot prove over their own existing fellow men, you wouldn't be on the internet getting butt hurt over someone who can shoot holes through your argument without any effort! At least we have something in common - IT TAKES NO EFFORT FOR THE BOTH OF US! IS THAT NOT GREAT?
If a God is Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent, then Free Will Does Not Exist

If god is omniscient, then god sees you masturbating. If god is omnibenevolent, then ugly creatures are also of beauty. If god is omnipotent, then all dick sizes are enough. People have sex in the most ugliest of ways every day, thus free will! Or... Free Willies!
Donald Trump should be president

This man is exceedingly bigoted and shows repressive and authoritarian tendencies. He's a rich man only out for himself. He doesn't care about the disillusioned or the poor. He doesn't care about those who feel as though they've been left behind. He's a greedy, rich pig who only cares about himself. This is what people need to realize. Donald Trump has gotten so much success because he says that he is standing up for the people who have been left behind by the political parties and their own government, but he is saying things like these only because it's in his self interest. Please don't forfeit this next round. It gets lonely debating by yourself.
I think the felony should decide if they want life in prison or death penalty

Hi Pro and thanks for the debate. There are few issues I find with this. First: This is only legally possible in states that have the option of death penalty. So felon can only decide this in those states. So this does not apply to all the felons but just some percentage of them. Since Instigator haven`t defined this I could argue that felon means every felon but I wont do that because it would be cheap. Second:Life in prison and death by execution have very different effects on ones life. If we gave prisoner the liberty to choose his own punishment we would go against the very idea of state deciding the proper punishment based upon the laws of the state. Death penalty is supported in some states for a reasons. Allowing the felon to choose death penalty or not would make state arbitrary in this decision. Third 1. partPart of the punishment is so that the justice is served. Justice is by definition the suspension of mercy and giving a felon the ability to choose between life and death is mercy. I agree that having mercy upon those criminals would make the whole situation more humane but the question is if should we focus on being more humane to those who took lives and freedoms out of their victims. If anything maybe family of the victim should decide. But that has whole list of problems and is separate issue I refuse to discuss here. Third 2. partWhy stop there ? If we allow them to choose if they wanna die or live in prison, if we wanna be more humane, why not give them deadly amount of sleeping pills so they can choose to die painlessly at any time. Just like we can. Why did we stripped them from those freedoms ? Why cant they decide which cell they want, which cell mates they want, which prison, which floor, which food, which guards ? That's because we hold them responsible for those crimes and we think that they don't deserve mercy for capital crimes. End of arguments. I will stop here for now. Since pro haven't stated any arguments beside "more humane situation" I will not post any arguments for the last round so that we both have same amount of rounds for arguments (in a case that Pro wants that)Good luck to the Pro.
Abortion Should Be Illegal

My opponent made many points in his second round arguments; I will attempt to address them all. Also, let it be known that I will not rebut my opponent's framework or have a framework of my own, because frameworks were not required in the rules. Good luck to my opponent and I will begin my rebuttals by addressing my opponent's first claim (other than his framework) . . . Rebuttal: "The Fetus Is Not Alive"The title alone is a false assertion. A fetus is alive. In fact, the Pro-Choice Action Network (a major pro-abortion group in Canada) admits that, "a fetus is certainly alive". [1] In addition to this, my opponent claims that there is a consensus, among scientists, that a fetus is not living; however, there are plenty of scientists that believe that life begins at conception. In fact, here are what some of these scientists have to say: - “I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception…. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life…. I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty…is not a human being. This is human life at every stage. ” (Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of paediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania)- “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception. ” (Professor Hymie Gordon at Mayo Clinic) - “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. ” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence. ” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception. ” (Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome)[2]Rebuttal: "Illegal Abortions"Unfortunately, as always, people will disobey the law, but that doesn't mean that because people will break the law, that making certain crimes legal will make the situation better. There are ways to prevent illegal abortions, including, but not limited to, public service announcements, strict penalties for illegal abortions, and education from parents and schools. Rebuttal: "Underage teenagers"My opponent seems to completely ignore the fact that teenagers who get pregnant can always give their baby up for adoption. I don't think anything else needs to be said, considering most of his argument surrounded around the fact that kids are expensive to take care of. Rebuttal: "Gender equality"Yes, pregnancies only happen to women, but that doesn't mean that a woman has the right to take the life of another woman/man. Also, where is the right of the man? Remember, that baby isn't only the woman's. Sources1. . http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org...2. . http://naapc.org...
Abortion Should Be Illegal

Rules1) Do not troll, please debate appropriately. 2) Have proper debate etiquette (e.g. use proper grammar, capitalization, etc.).3) Do not use fake or satire sources. (A list of fake and satire websites can be found here: www.snopes.com/2016/01/14/fake-news-sites/)4) Arguments must be submmited within a 72 hour period.5) Arguments must contain 10,000 or less characters.LayoutFirst round is acceptance.Second round is for arguments.Third round is rebuttals.The last round is why you did better than your opponent.Definition(s)Abortion - "the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy up to 28 weeks"I (Pro) argue that abortion should be illegal.My opponent (Con) argues that abortion should not be illegal.Let the debate begin, and good luck to my opponent! :-)
Objective truth/reality exists

I assure my opponent that I am taking this debate seriously. Maybe I don't realize how deep this topic goes. From my perspective, this relativism is purely illogical and self-refuting. Let's go back to some points I made earlier. "Pro constantly resorted to logic without once having justified to do so." I said earlier that the very nature of debate assumes logic exists. Therefore, I don't even have to prove logic exists. It is a prerequisite for debate. This debate is not really about whether logic exists or not. "I don't have to prove anything, because if I could then that would refute my main claim. Nothing I say would have to make sense since that is exactly what is to be expected if no objective reality exist." Then how on earth does my opponent intend to win this debate? I don't even have to respond to these claims. I have already proven that absolute truth exists anyway, and my opponent has conceded this. In my opponent's conclusion, he speaks only nonsense, which could be expected given his position. I have proven multiple times that absolute truth exists, so much so that my opponent cannot refute my claims and has resorted to attacking logic itself. Obviously, this debate requires logic. If logic does not exist, then there is no reason to vote for Con anyway (since reason wouldn't exist). Because of this fact, I am confident that even if my opponent has convinced some readers of his relativism, I have a good chance of getting a vote from them anyway (since their vote would likely be spontaneous). If readers are convinced that absolute truth exists, then I ask that they vote Pro. If readers are not convinced that absolute reality exists, I ask they vote Pro (I know this doesn't make sense, just do it anyway). Thank you for reading and thank you Con for the debate.