BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
truth is not arbitrary

people often argue between absolute and relative truth. well, relative is relative. it is better to say truth is not arbitrary. while most people may want to resort to believing in relative truth.... most people would also intuitively recoil at saying truth is arbitrary, and accept that it's not. what about examples, like the fact that the Greeks viewed sex with boys as A okay? and we see it as reprehensible? this just shows that it is not always clear to humans what is truth. in fact, it is probably clear to us much of natural law even if people have went against it in masses. men are not designed to have sex with boys. that is not the design of the body, or the system. i would tend to keep the argument with the above, as my focal point. but, i am in fact soemone who espouses what many would consider "relative' truth. proportionalism... that sometimes, at least in certain extreme situations, the ends justifies the means. this doesn't mean truth is arbitrary. in some situations is it clear, at least to me, that the ends justifies the means. sometimes it's not so clear what the right answer is. this again only means the answer isn't clear, not that truth is arbitrary. if you want to call this 'relativistic' i may or may not accept it depending on the implacations. if it in any way says i think truth is arbitrary, i reject it. to inject a bit of christian ideals, though not to hinge the debate on it. not believing in truth leads people to lies. untruths. in all the major episodes of humanity "eat of it, surely you shall not die" the snake said to eve. "what is truth?" Pilot said to Jesus. people have accepted a lie, an untruth, and we all suffered for it.
Family is more important than friends

Con thinks of his friend as a sidekick that never lets him down, never bullies him, never has doubts, never had strong opinions, never does peer-pressure never does anything bad is all goody-toes while family as old annoying people who always are after his life. Also, he believes friends are a constant and are not growing people that change, and that if a friend does slip up, he is not a friend. Also, a friend is always aware about peer-pressure and bullying and wouldn't even slightly do it to con, and if does, "you are acquaintance-zoned" Con says friends are like glue. I say yes, friends are like sticky glue that smells in your hands, is clingy, affects your skin and is hard to wash off. I don't have a brother or sister, so I didn't justify their roles. Con didn't rebut my point about fake friends, betrayal, government jobs, eccentric interests and money problems. Family is blood, has stuck with you through all stages of life (mostly), you would betray them for a temporary friend? No, I won't.
Family is more important than friends

Good Morning/Afternoon, Ladies and gentlemen,The opposition stated that parents can help you when you are going through tough times at school, example, bullying, but I believe that this is not necessarily helpful. Parents can often interfere with problems at school and we are, in fact, better off without them, figuring out the resolutions ourselves. The opposition also stated that friends often blackmail you. But this is NOT true. Friends are people who you trust and if they blackmail you they are not friends. There is a difference between friends, bullies and acquaintances. If a person blackmails you, they are certainly NOT considered your friend.And now to continue my argument,Friends enhance our social life in many ways that your family doesn't. Friends can expose you to different cultures and religions and lifestyles. Having a friend of a different faith to your own encourages you to become more knowledgeable and more tolerant. Rather than sticking to your own kind and closing your mind, a friend of a different faith expresses you to the real world full of different people and different beliefs. This encourages you to become more tolerant, more thinking, more caring for all people not just your own people. You can choose to have an open outlook by choosing your friends but may be stuck with your family's narrow perspective - as we see with certain religious groups like the Amish or many rigid, fundamental, groups.Friends can expose you to a more multicultural life. We can have friends from different cultures and so learn to enjoy a richer life full of new food, new clothes,. new lifestyles, new stories, new perspectives. Sure your family could take you to a Vietnamese restaurant but having a Vietnamese friend and eating at their house is far more authentic. You meet their family, you talk to the mother about the food, you talk about life in Vietnam, maybe, about their reason for coming here, maybe, about changes they made. This is far richer than going to a Vietnamese restaurant with your family and talking about the same boring stuff again. I choose my friends but I'm stuck with my family.Friends can increase your social life by introducing you to their friends. This is great because now you have an even greater choice of people in your circle - people who can introduce to new activities like joining them at a concert you may never of considered. You might travel overseas with them and share a lifetime of memories and adventures. Because you choose your friends choose someone who is like minded and will more likely enjoy your travels than being stuck with a family dragging you to places THEY want to visit.Friends are more fun. They are the company you choose. Families want to protect you by building a fence around you, but a friend builds the gate opening to a bigger, more exciting, more tolerant, more life enhancing world. And for this reason I prefer to choose my friends rather than be stuck with my family.Thanks for accepting this challenge and good luck for the future of this debate.Kind Regards,Caty44444444
Family is more important than friends

Good Morning/Afternoon,Ladies and gentleman,Family is not more important than friends because you can choose your friends but you're stuck with your family. We argue that friends are necessary for our emotional and social wellbeing throughout life. Family is important when you are young because they physically look after you, but as you get older - and that is most of your life - family takes a backseat to friends, as we don't need them to look after us. In fact, family is the cause of many problems, and we are stuck with themIn my first round I will be talk about the emotional benefits of friends and in my second round I will talk about the social benefits of friends. And in my third round I will sum up my arguments.And now to begin my case. Friends are like counsellors - friends share deepest secrets with each other - the secrets that nobody knows not even the family. Friends feel relaxed together - they participate in activities together, they share similar interests and spend lots of time together. Because of this trust develops - you develop confidence, whereas in families there is often competition between siblings for the parents attention. Your sibling often dobs on you to get the upper hand. You sibling may have totally different interests, but you're stuck with them - but friends and compatibility, you choose.Secondly, friends are generally in the same age group as you and understand the complications in you're life. They too are going through exams, bullying, puberty, romance, marriage, divorce, parenthood etc. They share your experiences and are more tolerant of how you handle things than family are - who are more likely to boss you, preach at you and put you down for your problems. I'd choose a friend for support but I'm stuck with my family. Lastly, you choose friends that understand you, they get you. They may not be exactly like but they respect you, and don't take you for granted. They don't tell you to do chores or expect you to be brilliant. Because you choose each other, you respect each other - more so than if you are stuck with a family member you don't get along with.Family is not more important than friends, simply because you don't get to choose them - you're stuck with what you're born with - no say in the matter - no control. But friends, you have a choice here, you can pick the ones that make you happy, support you and share you're ups and downs. They are human superglue. I choose friends forever.This concludes my first round of this debate. I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate challenge. I appreciate any comments and votes. Feel free to challenge me to future debates. Thankyou once again!Happy Debating,Caty44444444
Ban Handguns And Replace Them With Tasers

I asked my opponent to give me hard facts on why handguns should be banned which he has failed to do so. He stated that tasers are designed not to kill but to subdue. When evidence shown tasers killing 800+ people, not only that tasers causes heart problems, seizures, etc... Handguns they shouldn't be banned for reasons such as protection, say you got a tasers, say you are about to be mugged or shot by a person or people who bought a handgun in the black market, so holding it illegally, your only option is what since they banned handguns to tasers them to death when tasers only travel 15 ft. And a gun travels further, I personally think you'd choose a handgun in that situation. Also lets say if someone had a handgun, this guy came in to a school with kids or anywhere. The guy or girl started shooting everyone and everything, civilians have a chance to save lives by using there handgun. Also you have to worry about gangs knowing they can get handguns and since they are ban all other people have are tasers making it easier for gangs to do there job. Not only that they will over run the bad people, why if all people have to get rid of guns then cops would have to get rid of them too there's no double standard in this. The main thing why we shouldn't ban handguns or guns is just in case we get invaded by another country how we going to protect ourselves tase them to death lol. Also if handguns get banned they will be violating our most important constitutional right. "right to bare arms". Lets see if my opponent will reply to this debate, this is just the beginning so I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to come back hard, my next argument I will counter act anything you say. Good luck
Ban Handguns And Replace Them With Tasers

This is my opening argument, this shall be a real short opening argument to why the claims you say that tasers are not a lethal weapon. Opening argument will say that yes handguns are lethal, but tasers are also lethal as well, which in my next round I will produce evidence, and facts, as for my final argument ill produce you with closing conclusions and sources were I found such evidence and facts that will be introduce in this debate case. There will be evidence produce on why Handguns shouldn't be banned. As a closing thought to this round I wish my opponent good luck, also introduce more facts on why guns should be banned not just from own personal judgement, which is not a bad thing but for my arguments I need to understand and conclude in a debate on facts and reasons not based on personal judgement calls on why handguns are banned and replace with tasers. Thanks for this opportunity to debate this subject with you.
Ban Handguns And Replace Them With Tasers

Tasers are designed not to kill but to subdue and subduing an attacker is the only legitimate reason for using either a taser or a handgun. So, it's a no-brainer. Ban the handguns, legalize civilian possession, and self-defense use of tasers. There is no reason why someone who just wants to defend themselves must have a generally lethal weapon on hand. A generally nonlethal weapon would suffice. We would see violent crime drop, while all those cases that gun control opponents cite of self-defense with a gun would be replaced with cases of self-defense with a taser. This should include a gun buy back program and if the market value of the taser is higher then the difference should be paid to the person in addition to what they would normally get for giving up their gun.
does canada suck

Let's start with some definitions. Canada- noun, meaning a place that sucks. Sucks- verb (used with object) 1. to draw into the mouth by producing a partial vacuum by action of the lips and tongue: to suck lemonade through a straw. 2. to draw (water, moisture, air, etc.) by or as if by suction: Plants suck moisture from the earth. The pump sucked water from the basement. 3. to apply the lips or mouth to and draw upon by producing a partial vacuum, especially for extracting fluid contents: to suck an orange. http://dictionary.reference.com... I'll be using the 2nd definition. Canada for the word suck and the only definition for the word Canada. The word Canada is defined as sucking, so I win, but if I have to make an argument for the 2nd definition it would be that Canada draws in tourists. Since one definition is to draw in, I win.
It is impossible for two humans to physically touch eachother.

to put the hand, finger, etc., on or into contact with (something) to feel it: that is the definition of touch. To touch something and feel it. when you touch something then you feel it. atoms or not, if you touch something you do feel it. physï¿½iï¿½cal tending to touch, hug, pat, etc.; physically demonstrative: so the definition of physical is touching as well.
It is impossible for two humans to physically touch eachother.

The debate was not if you could feel someone, but if you could physically touch someone. - Yes I agree that you can feel someone, however I think that the definition of touch is inconceivable. It's at least something to think about. Perhaps our knowledge of atoms is flawed, or perhaps there are other particles even smaller then the electron that allows us to come into contact. But with the basic agreement with scientists and people in today's world, it should be impossible for two humans to PHYSICALLY touch one another.
Some people need to calm down on this website.

You should have shown proof of this N word, but my argument still remains the same... How do you know they are not calm? You have not shown proof of any words transpiring form one to another for this conclusion that they were not calm. Perhaps they were showing you their point of view, since you were defending the KKK. I have not seen were you were called the N word anywhere, but how do you know they were not calmly typing this for you to see their point of view? If this is the case they have made their point to you, its a hurtful thing to say. The thing is how do you know they were not calm when typing this. You have not shown proof that they were not calm nor have you shown they even said it.
Some people need to calm down on this website.

I see, this is a personal issue. I do feel this would have been better posted here http://www.debate.org..... I must continue with the debate. When chatting on line you should not take things personal, how do you know they need to chill? They don't know you and you don't know them. Online they could be, people so calm saying whatever creeps into their mind. How you can never really know what and how they said it in their head. "OK, Not sure if we're going but I might see you at the party. If you leave, let me know." "OK! Not sure if we're going but I might see you at the party! If you leave, let me know!" see how you read those differently, not only does punctuation make a difference; it depends the personalty of the writer, and the the personality of the reader. Because on this website you have not met these people therefor, it makes it harder for you to explain. Line one is kinda plain you could read it fine and think nothing of it or you could read it thinking they just want to ditch me.. Line two you could read it in a screaming voice as in enough and quit bugging me... or you could read it as excitement. How do you know they really need to chill, how do you know, they don't just want you to understand their view?? Another example of a letter that was supposed to be a breakup letter.... How she wrote it: Dear John: I want a man who knows what love is all about. You are generous, kind, thoughtful People who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me for other men. I yearn for you. I have no feelings whatsoever when we're apart. I can be forever happy–will you let me be yours Gloria DEAR JOHN LETTER TWO: How she meant it: Dear John: I want a man who knows what love is. All about you are generous, kind, thoughtful people, who are not like you. Admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me. For other men, I yearn. For you, I have no feelings whatsoever. When we're apart, I can be forever happy. Will you let me be? Yours, Gloria I could possibly be on of the worst offenders of this very thing. You need to show they intended to hurt you and are so inflamed they need a chill pill.
Religion is Harmful to Society

Religion is Harmful to SocietyIt promotes irrational thought. Things like Catastrophizing, Minimization, Grandiosity, Personalization, Magical thinking, Leaps in logic, “All or nothing” thinking, Paranoia and Delusional thinking are all promoted by religion.http://psychcentral.com...These irrational thoughts can often lead to deathA 12 year old Polish girl hung herself believing she could see her dead father again.http://www.dailymail.co.uk...A 13 year old atheist was kicked out of her home by her Christian parents.http://www.addictinginfo.org...Two children died at the hands of their own parents because they decided to pray for them, rather than seek modern medical care.http://www.dailymail.co.uk...An Arizona man killed his own son with an ax because he thought he was a demon.http://www.rawstory.com...The recent documentary, "The Cruelty of Creationism" shows how biblical fundalmentalism imprisons the mind.http://www.slate.com...The Iraq war was pushed by scripture in memos George Bush got from Rumsfeldhttp://www.nydailynews.com...Religion holds back science, by denying evolution, holding back stem cell research and discourages vaccinations and the use of condoms to prevent aids.The Bible condones, rape, slavery and scientific errorshttp://spot.colorado.edu...The evidence is overwhelming that religion is harmful to society.
Religion is Harmful to Society

I don't pretend I am an expert in anthropology. So no I am not sure about my position. Its just an opinion. Every debate is an opportunity to learn and you throw it away. I am not an anthropologist and If I was I would not waste my time debating anthropology in this community. I also see from the comments there are is a couple of people you are hostile to. You Banned them from taking part in your debate and you are even annoyed that another even comments on your unacceptable behaviour. Good job man. You are a joke. Go on debate with some theists.... Oh wait there is nothing to debate because you know all their arguments already...
Religion is Harmful to Society

Is that all this is reduced to you? A word game? What you want then? Find some typical christian who will tell you what his pastor tells him and will start arguing the usual nonsense about charity? The same freaking arguments that you can find in every single Youtube video on the subject? Every non indoctrinated human can obliterate these arguments. You are not interested in debating. All you want to do is to bash on theists. I bet that it never even crossed your little mind that there can be religions out there that are not harmful. And to be honest i really don't know if i am right in the point i made at round 1 cos i didn't do enough research. I was hoping for you to prove me wrong so i can learn something. You just threw away such an interesting debate matter without regret. Another lame debater who does not want to debate.Go find some indoctrinated theist so that you can prove prove to yourself you are not indoctrinated anymore. My experience with the community here is going from bad to worse. Can anyone give me advice so i can avoid guys like him and the guy i debated with in my previous debate? PLZ i am all ears.
Religion is Harmful to Society

Seriously? Another word game?If I wanted to debate about a hunter gather society, I would have said the debate was "Religion is Harmful to Society"Seriously, "society" is what we live in today, in modern times. I'm really tired of the word games. If and when somebody wants an honest debate, let me know.You "won"...happy now?You do know there's no voting on this debate, right? It's about truth, not word games.
Religion is Harmful to Society

I am saddened by the narrow prespective of my opponent"s arguments and sources. The problem with my opponent"s sources is that they represent only a fraction of human societies. He focused heavily on the religions of agricultural Societies and especially modern agricultural societies. Agricultural societies with populations measuring thousands and millions of people is a recent development. Since the appearance of modern humans 200.000 years ago humans have traditionaly lived in small hunter gatherer bands and tribes. Even today there are societies in remote places that follow to a large extend this traditional way of life. Agricultural societies appeared only 10.0000 years ago and represent only 5% of our history. http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent focussed only on the 5% of human history, I will now focus on the rest 95% and claim that religion is not harmful in hunter gatherer societies. Hunter gatherer religions have different characteristics from the ones in practice in agricultural societies and as a result they do not cause harm. Quoted from (http://www.journalofplay.org...) Written by Proff. Peter Gray (http://www.bc.edu...) "It is no surprise that monotheistic religions that blossomed in feudal times portray a hierarchical view of the cosmos with an all powerful God, a "king of kings," at the top and a storyline focused on the requirements of obedience and service to lords and masters. It is also no surprise that hunter-gatherer religions reflect an egalitarian view of the spirit world, populated by a multitude of deities, none of whom have authority over the others or over human beings." I don't want to quote the entire article but if you read a bit there is a description of hunter gatherer religions. These religions are not even close to what we have today in our society. Religions in this kind of societies are not harmfull and are not covered by any of your arguments. At best my opponent can only prove that religion is harmful in recent agricultural societies. On the other hand I have showed that for hunter gatherer societies religion is not harmful. For that reason the claim that religion is harmful to society is not true.