BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rich vs. Poor

Topic: The very rich have a moral obligation of charity to the extremely poor. Round One: This round is for acceptance, rule, and definitions. Rules: Keep things polite. No new arguments or evidence in the final round. Burdens: Burdens are shared. Pro must show that the very rich have a moral obligation of charity to the most indigent; Con must show that no such obligation exists. Provisos: This is a debate of morality and philosophy, not a legal or stats-driven debate. The debate is not about how much or how little charity is owed, just that some charity is owed by the very rich to the very poor. Neither is it a debate of socialism vs. capitalism. By accepting, you agree to rules and definitions. This debate is not confined to the U.S. Definitions: Very Rich - net worth at least $1billion (there are 1,210 billionaires in the world, according to Forbes) Moral Obligation - obligated by morality (you may use various philosophical or ethical theories to describe this) Charity - provisions of money, materials, or help to people in need of one or more of those things Extremely Poor - those living on less than $2 a day (there are about 660 million extremely poor in the world, according to World Bank) Thank you in advance for accepting! I look forward to an enthralling debate!
Cun Control

I think that the second amendment is important to the constitution, Sure. But look at the facts. Most of the mass shootings that have taken place have used Semi-or Automatic rifles. Pistols, Revolvers, And shotguns should still be allowed (hunting, Self defense, Whatever you need a gun for). But you DO NOT need a gun that fires 13. 3 rounds a minute. What in the world do you need that for? You think that you're going to need to put 15 bullets into a deer to kill it? No! Those guns were DESIGNED to kill. Still you can have your guns for self defense. But at least take away the ones that do the most damage.
Cun Control

Well, We wouldn't take away ALL guns. That would be going against the constitution after all. However, You are correct. There is no guaranteed way that we could get all the guns from people. Someone might have a better idea of how to do this, But here's my idea: We could go through the receipts of the people that have bought auto/semi weapons. Then, Because they would be breaking the law, They would have to give up their guns. If someone is caught with a gun like that they would be fined. "Criminals do not follow the law, That's why they're criminals. The only thing that gun control would be doing is taking the guns out of the hands of innocent citizens and leaving them in the hands of criminals. This leaves the citizens defenseless and gives an advantage to the criminals. " That may be true, The guns would be taken away from citizens. But the guns will also be taken out of the hands of criminals. As stated before, You would still have pistols and rifles and guns like that for "self defense" and hunting or whatever. By saying that criminals would get guns anyway is like saying "Oh, Let's make bank robbery legal because bad guys are going to try it anyway. " No. There have been too many deaths and mass murders for this to go on. We need to do something, ANYTHING.
Cun Control

First off, Thank you for joining this debate. I am very excited to see how this debate goes. Good luck to you. I would first like to mention that there would be no way to remove all of those guns from the hands of criminals. Criminals do not follow the law, That's why they're criminals. The only thing that gun control would be doing is taking the guns out of the hands of innocent citizens and leaving them in the hands of criminals. This leaves the citizens defenseless and gives an advantage to the criminals.
If a president has an approval rating of 33% then they should honorably resign.

I must say I am slightly dissapointed. I will give the benefit of the doubt to my opponent and not assume that he has conceded out of lack of rebuttal. Though I must say that it looks awfully strange that he has been here on debate.org and participating in other debates, yet has failed to give a round 1 argument. My opponent said in an earlier debate him and I had: "as they have not posted in the last few rounds I take that as conceding, so I should win this debate." So, surely he will be able to post next round, for otherwise, with his own logic, he should lose.
If a president has an approval rating of 33% then they should honorably resign.

Hello, I would like to clarify that I intend for this debate NOT to be specific to George W. Bush. This is a debate about presidents in general, whether they are democrats or republicans… When you are president, in this democracy, your solemn duty is to protect the interests of the people. A few presidents that have achieved extremely low approval ratings are Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and both George Bush's. Since approval ratings vary, this debate will circle around the hypothetical of a president having an approval rating of 33%. I assert that this hypothetical president should honorably resign, being unpopular as he/she is. 33% is only one third of the population. The right thing to do would be to honorably resign, because they are no longer wanted by the nation. A president who truly valued democracy would do just that. To not resign in this hypothetical does not arise from any sense of benignity, but from hunger for power, in most cases. To not resign is to openly defy the will of the majority of the United States; it is to oppose the nation to which they vowed to serve. These kinds of politicians to not believe in democracy, they see it as an obstacle that they must overcome to get power. Have these politicians no sense of honor, no sense of duty to the country? We live in the twenty first century; we can not tolerate power-hungry politicians continuing to stay in power even after it has been made clear that the citizens of the country to which they rule are opposed to their seat in government. This is not representative government, this is despotism. One of the first questions that should be asked of a candidate before they are elected is: "If you are no longer favored by the nation, shall you resign?" -Harlan
If a president has an approval rating of 33% then they should honorably resign.

You are "shocked" by what I say only because you have some misconceptions about this country, and about democracy in general. While we are taught in school that democracy necessarily equals freedom, and that democratic nations are free nations that is not always the case. My job is not to provide you with an alternative as to which we could judge the performance of politicians, but simply prove yours wrong. While immediate inspection may show that democracy is a great way to determine which is good, this is not the case. In fact, I will try to show that it is an especially bad way of deciding what is good and what is bad, and that we should not use democracy, in any respect, to decide if our leaders should resign or remain the leaders. While our country does use a somewhat democratic process to decide who our president will be, this is not a very good process to begin with, to escalate this by having politicians resign based on the whims of the public would be disastrous. While you claim that politicians will not necessarily have to follow these whims of the public, it will in fact necessarily happen. No politician would want to resign, so to remain in charge the politician would have to effectively follow public opinions waxes and wanings. This would be a bad thing, as this would lead to tyranny. Public opinion, democracy rule simply shows that the majority will get their will taken, not that people will be delt with freely. If 66.6% of the American public wanted to execute black people, would that be just? Under your view of this great democracy it would be a just move. I disagree. Allowing the public to decide who is president, and who is not president will not stop tyranny, it will create it. To empirically disprove your argument that democracy should be used to determine if somebody should resign from office, I submit the logical fallacy, argumentum ad populum. Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy in which one believes that since a view, a person, or a thing is popular that it is favorable, or likewise, since something is unpopular it is dis favorable, or in this case that a politician should resign, not resign, or be put in his position of power. Your entire argument is based off of how great this democracy is, however, democracy's foundations are in tyranny, and fallacy. As democracy, majority rule is based off of a logical fallacy we should not have politicians resign if their approval rating is even 0%. Logical arguments should be used, if anything, determining who is correct through a logical process and analysis given the situation, such as, for example, an impeachment. If you accept pros argument, you deny logic.
If a president has an approval rating of 33% then they should honorably resign.

First and foremost, I must apologize for my tardiness. I always hate it when someone forfeits a round, but hate it more when they forfeit all rounds. I will try to make a much greater effort to post in all rounds for now on. I think that you and I might have very similar overall goals, to get rid of bad leaders, however you and I have different means of doing so. Personally, I have strongly disapproved of many of our leaders, and thought it might be good if they resigned. However, where you and I differ is that I believe that they should resign based on their actual job performance, if they in fact do their best to uphold the constitution or of they do not do so well at upholding it. While it is possible that a president with a low approval rating is doing a bad job, that does not necessarily mean that he is doing poorly, in fact it means absolutely nothing. The duty of the President, or leaders in general is not to follow every whim of the public as public opinion waxes and wanes, but rather to run the executive branch as per the constitution, regardless of public opinion. If we expect a president to resign simply because of a poor public opinion, then we must also expect the president to do many other things for public opinion. Public opinion is not always rational, and not always correct. Your argument is based on a fallacy, argument from popularity. Simply because a politician is unpopular does not mean that he is a bad politician, nor does it mean he has at all failed his duties. I will give an example of a politician who might be unpopular, but who nevertheless would likely follow his duties as per the constitution. Ron Paul did rather bad in the Republican primaries. If he were to have become president, by whatever means his approval rating might be very low. After all, his views differ greatly from those of the majority of the American public. However, would he do bad at his job of president? On the contrary, he would follow his duties to the letter, being a very well known constitutionalist. For another example, FDR was rather popular, at least more popular than The Bush's, Nixon, and other presidents with low approval ratings. He however, did not stand by the American principles outlined in the constitution, in fact, he went against them, starting a miniature socialist revolution in the US. Popularity is not now, nor will it ever be an indication of job performance. Politicians should only retire, or be forced to retire if their job performance is low. As an argument from popularity is clearly not an indication of job performance (as per the logical flaw) then no percent of the population should have any say in determining if a president should be impeached, or resign.
The Cowboys vs. the Patriots in Super Bowl LI

If everyone on the Cowboys' offensive end plays to their potential as they have pretty much all season long, they'll represent the NFC in the Super Bowl, with a good chance of winning it all. Their defense can be suspect at times, but overall they have the ability to be good. If Dallas meets the Patriots in the Super Bowl, which I believe they will, and they can shut down their rushing offense, they'll more than likely win it all. Tom Brady is good, but if you have a one dimensional offense, you're not winning many games. Dallas isn't ranked high on the total passing yards as a team (23rd overall this season), but that's mainly due to the fact that Dak Prescott isn't a "gun slinger" QB. He is a short yardage passer, who throws the ball very effectively with few mistakes. And because Dallas dominates the game clock almost every game, they control the game. Very few, if any, teams will be able to handle that. Dallas' run game is tops in the league this year, with Ezekiel Elliot dominating pretty much every defense he came across. That, coupled with a strong passing game, spells trouble for the rest of the league. As I have said earlier, it is very difficult to beat a team three times in one season and I honestly don't believe New York (IF they even get past Green Bay) will be able to handle it. New York is too much of a streaky team to do any real damage in the playoffs and right now they're in a funk. Green Bay could match offense, but Aaron Rodgers is too much of a cocky "gun slinging" QB to not make any real threat for a longer period of time. And their rush offense is ranked 20th overall this season. Nothing to really shake a stick at, to be honest. No depth. Atlanta and MAYBE Seattle could compete with Dallas, but they would have to play their best full game; not happening. And since we're in agreement with New England, there's really no reason to get into why I believe they'll represent the AFC in the Super Bowl. Dallas vs Patriots in Super Bowl LI.
The Cowboys vs. the Patriots in Super Bowl LI

I'm in agreement with you that I believe New England will be the AFC representative, I did say the Chiefs could compete, but after doing some more research I just believe it's not possible. The NFC however is a little more difficult because while it's true the Cowboys definitely did have a terrific season. the Giants Defensively were one of the best teams in the NFL. Opponents only registered 22 sacks against them for the third best mark (only Oakland and Pittsburgh were better), the Cowboys were tied with two other teams for seventh allowing 28 sacks. The Giants have a slightly better passing defence than the Cowboys ranking 23rd to Dallas' 26th. Both teams have elite rushing defence with the Cowboys being number one in that department and the Giants ranking third. The two times these teams played there wasn't a great deal of offense and both games were close. Prescott is a great QB and Ezekiel Elliott is a great RB but we will have to see how they do against a team filled with playoff veterans like the Giants, that is assuming the Giants can handle the Green Bay Packers and get to face the Cowboys in the first place, because this is the only team I can see preventing Dallas from a Super Bowl Appearance. The Falcons just do not have the defence to get it done.
The Cowboys vs. the Patriots in Super Bowl LI

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me, or if you think only Dallas or New England will make it and they'll play another team in the Super Bowl. Dallas this year looks eerily reminiscent of the early and mid 90's team. Troy Aikman and Dak Prescott, Emmitt Smith and Ezekiel Elliot, and both with number one ranked offensive lines. These similarities lead me to believe that Dallas cannot be stopped in the NFC. The only team that has a small chance is Atlanta because of their offense and the ability to just outscore their opponent. But they would have to match Dallas' offense and that will be tough to do. New England is just outright tough to beat. I don't see any team beating them in the playoffs. It would be a dream match-up, ratings wise. The Giants beat Dallas twice already and it's very tough to beat a team three times in the same season. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it's very difficult. I really don't see any other team beating Dallas.
The Cowboys vs. the Patriots in Super Bowl LI

The only team that I believe is capable of knocking off the Dallas Cowboys is the New York Giants, through the regular season both of these teams were evenly matched in the head to head games they played. The Cowboys defence against Eli Manning was not entirely great, otherwise I think Dallas will make it to the finals. I'm in agreement that the Patriots will probably be the AFC representative with only the Kansas City Chiefs as a potential spoiler.
The Cowboys vs. the Patriots in Super Bowl LI

I am taking the position that Super Bowl LI in Houston will feature the Dallas Cowboys and the Patriots. No other team has the ability to stop either of these teams when relatively healthy. Pro/Me: Cowboys vs Patriot in Super Bowl LI Con: Any Other Team Con can argue that Super Bowl LI will feature a combination of any other team, or any team vs. the Cowboys, or any other team vs. the Patriots. As long as it isn't the Cowboys vs. the Patriots.
Boxers Are Better Than Briefs

Alright pretty serious debate here so lets hope it goes well. First I will refute your arguments then make my own. 1)When one has a large and dropped package boxers cause one to sit on ones nuts and penis, this is not comfortable, especially when you have a tendency to just flop onto chairs, furthers more boxers force the wear to constantly adjust while briefs you can just stick it how you like it and go. Simply strong holds are better. 2)Their are some cool designs at some malls, the graffiti looks good. Particularly I like the brown strip in the back look, very classy. Whats more is only sissy men want pretty underwear, pirates are jsut like f*ck it holds my cock its good. 3)You can still have accidents in boxers, more so if you sit on your package. 4) The other feelings you get from briefs are just as good, the tight hold gives your shaft the impression of getting hand. 5)There are too many children in the world anyway 6) boxer briefs are just over sized briefs therefore this argument is pro brief. Reasons to wear briefs are as follows; 1) Proper control, no genital based anarchy in my pants 2) more manly 3) properly conceals boners, even enhances feeling 4) They are cheap
Boxers Are Better Than Briefs

Since the dawn of man, boxers have reigned supreme in the world of underwear. Here's why: 1. More comfort. Boxers are nonrestrictive, and as a result, more comfortable. The separated legs also allow more flexibility and leave more room for my junk. 2. Cool designs. Boxers come in plaid, polka dots, tie-dye, and every other design you could possibly imagine. When designs are on briefs, it looks like Pull-ups. 3. No resemblance to Pull-ups. Briefs remind me of the diaper days. I don't want to feel like I'm wearing a diaper. When people see you in boxers, they think, "Hey, that guy must be potty trained." It's a pretty good feeling. 4. Airy. Boxers have open legs which are perfect for hot weather (I live in AZ). I can be sweating like crazy but still have plenty of ventilation. 5. Higher sperm count. Tight clothes can lessen your sperm count; not a problem with boxers. 6. Warmth. Boxers also come in a boxer-brief option (the word "brief" is totally irrelevant; boxer-briefs are merely tight boxers). This can keep any guy warm during the cold seasons.
Boxers Are Better Than Briefs

I can see you are a worthy opponent. I should have made this more than 2 rounds. First I will refute your refutings. Then, I will refute your arguments. 1. For well-endowed wearers, such as myself, this is not a problem. In all my years, I have never accidentally sat on my wang. And I would actually argue the opposite, that you have to adjust with briefs. Because in boxers, your junk is always free to move. Therefor, if you are in an awkward position, you can just move over a little, and you will automatically be in a new position. With briefs, you are committed to that one position for as long as you wear underwear. I can't even bear to imagine the shear uncomfortability of this concept. 2. Dude, all of the sweetest designs are on boxers. On briefs, you got three choices: white, single-colored, or teenage mutant ninja turtle patterns. It is designs like the third option that remind me of Pull-ups. Maybe it's just me, but I do not want to revisit my diaper days. I don't want pretty underwear, I just want to look damn good. 4. Are you telling me that you get the same feeling of ventilation in briefs? That is outrageous! Boxers are the closest thing to streaking while still wearing clothes. 5. But with no sperm you can sell it to a sperm bank. Without sperm, I would not have enough money for groceries or rent. Sperm is my livelihood. 6. The definition of boxers are underwear with long legs. The definition of briefs is underwear with no legs. Therefore, boxer-briefs cannot be briefs because they have legs. Now to refute your arguments: 1. Briefs have too much control. It's like a kung fu grip on my wang. Don't think of it as anarchy. Think of it as eternal bliss. 2. Oh yeah, briefs are so manly that girls wear the same damn things. The only thing that is different is the name. WAKE UP! PANTIES AND BRIEFS ARE ONE AND THE SAME!! 3. You got me there, bro. 4. Boxers are the underwear of nobility. Commoners aren't allowed to wear them, that's why they're so expensive. Boxers are the best, for obvious reasons. But I just thought of one more: you can easily take them off without taking off your shoes. I don't know why you would ever want to do that, but you could if you wanted.
Atheism is not a religion

i don't really see how this can be a debate if you are sending people to watch other people debate for you... ill at least put my 27 cents in ;) atheism IS a religion they believe in not believing in a god therefore its a religion based on believing in the non believers.. also if they strongly believe there's no god then they believe that earth was created a different way , maybe not by a god and maybe they take a scientists so then they are just looking at whats in front of them , they are seeing the proof
Atheism is not a religion

"The only way you can be a bad atheist is to believe in god." Matt Dillahunty "You don't get to put your unreason upon the same shelf with my reason." Bill Maher "Atheism is a response to a single claim, that some god exists. We don"t believe that"s true so we"re atheists. And that"s all it means." Jen peeples Atheism: 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Prove that atheism is a religion. As far as the videos are concerned, they are all irrefutable. But watch video 1 if anything and the rest neatly fall in line. Video 3. with Bill Maher is hilarious and very entertaining. http://www.youtube.com... - Video 1. Reasons for accepting atheism http://www.youtube.com... - Video 2. Proof that atheism is accurate and correct http://www.youtube.com... - Video 3. Bill Maher - Atheism IS NOT a Religion http://www.youtube.com... - Video 4. Atheism a religion? http://www.youtube.com... - Video 5. The case for Atheism (Richard Carrier) http://www.youtube.com... - Video 6. The Gospel According to Carrier http://www.youtube.com... - Video 7. A believers guide to Atheism in 9 minutes http://www.youtube.com... - Video 8. Is Atheism a Dogmatic Religion? dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.