BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Earth will Have a Global Revolution within 500 Years

I dont think the idea for totalitarian place is crazy because the trend of growth was like we had small settlements which turned into villages which further into cities and so on to country which again got grouped as for example European Union etc. We have become more connected and technology played an important role here in bringing people far away under one hood. Cultural differences have been becoming less and less nowadays. We see that there is more of common culture everywhere. So the world is slowly moving into unity than diversity. So the above sentence explains why the idea of small cities is far fetched. Now coming to the technology aspect. We have been long fighting for what we call Privacy. Big corporates already have been using the user datas trading for money. The primary concern about the Internet of Things is the privacy issue which can be very serious when our personal data is in the hands of big corporates and we are literarily obliged to them. See now itself you can take example of many big companies who take our data and literarily many are not knowing about they might be selling to others which can potentially lead to big dangers. And to add about the direct democracy(It was an interesting read and it was the first time i came across the concept. Thanks). It would be pretty hard to implement the idea of direct democracy into such an increasing world population with no concern whatsover what happens to the world. People care less about decision making process, we can very well see how many persons are ready to get involved in politics and decision making process directly in direct democracy. People tend to stay back and mind there business. So i guess the idea of direct democracy wont work. People have there needs and coprorates are filling slowing buying themselves and making them under there control. Coporates control many government influence election and almost everything. So maybe we are moving towards corporate takeover. They are taking patents in medicines, advanced military and robotics and so what more do we want to belive its all easy for them.
Earth will Have a Global Revolution within 500 Years

(Make sure to correct some usage errors. Bad grammar is always unprofessional.)First of all, I do not believe that Earth will unite into one supergiant corporate totalitarian place. That idea is completely ludacris and humanity will surely fight against it.I do not understand why you are against small city-states. Please explain.About technology, you may think we are slavesto it as of 2015, but I'm 99% sure by 2515, we will simply become one with technology. The Internet of Things is the first step to this process, and you really should look it up if you haven't already.Lastly, you must understand that even not accounting for the fact that time is "speeding up" (the 1900s have had more stuff happen in them than the rest of the 1000s combined), 500 years is a LONG TIME. Remember that our last global revolution happened only 100-200 years ago (monarchy to representative democracy) and it surely will happen again (representative democracy to direct democracy) soon enough. Possibly we will evensee hints of a new world sociology before we are both dead.https://en.wikipedia.org...(conspiracy_theory)https://en.wikipedia.org...'https://en.wikipedia.org...;
Earth will Have a Global Revolution within 500 Years

Hello. This is my first debate that i am participating and i am looking forward to it. :) P.S Please point out mistake in debating method if i go wrong. Thanks. Yes there will be great changes to our lives with tecnhology and culture. And more to add I am against the fact that we would literarily split up into city states. I am afraid a change were a one world government controlled by a big corporate giant is not a thought which should be easily given off. We very well know the power of technology and we humans have literarily become slaves of it. Hence i strongly believe Global revolution in 500 years maynot be an easy situation.
Earth will Have a Global Revolution within 500 Years

Welcome to my first debate!TOPIC:Will Earth have a global-scale revolution before 2515? Could all countries in the world unite into one colossal powerhouse? Or could every country split up into thousands of city-states, each with their own form of government? Or will everything just stay the sameThat is what this debate will discuss.MY STANCE:I am debating Pro for this debate. I do believe technology and culture will completely change how we as humans interact with eachother.Personally, I think that countries could split up into city-states with some form of interstate law. A form of direct democracy could be the primary method of government.RULES:Be direct, clear, and PLEASE have good grammar. Round 1 will be acceptance, Round 2 will be the debate, Round 3 will be rebuttals, and Round 4 will be conclusions.Have fun, and enjoy my first debate!--Evan C.
Sikhism is the same as Judaism:

None of those quotes have anything to do with homosexuality... They all seem to be talking about general lust, homosexual or otherwise. Besides, an indication of homosexuality being a sin is not enough. There needs to be a clear, explicit prohibition. The prohibition against acts of sexual immorality are very important, and are one of the 7 Noahide Laws. I think it's weird that you set yourself up with such an easily refutable argument instead of just giving in. Judaism and Sikhism are not the same religion. Sikhism does not acknowledge the gravity of the sin of homosexuality. It does not command its followers to set up courts. They do not believe in the coming of the Messiah, or the Resurrection of the Dead. They do not believe in the Torahs - both the written and oral. They do not believe in the Prophets and Writings. Sikhism is not Judaism, and this should be clear and apparent to all.
Sikhism is the same as Judaism:

It is as a matter of fact banned in Sikhism, Sikhs decide to ignore these verses, much like some Christians ignore verses from the Tanakh and verses in their own NonTestament, here are a few Sit Scriptures that indicate that Homosexuality is a sin: "You are overflowing with sexual desire, and your intellect is stained with darkness; you are held in the grip of Shakti's power." ||2|| (Bhagat Baini page 93 line 7) "When others die, you measure your own wealth in your mind; you waste your life in the pleasures of the mouth and sexual organs" ||3|| (Devotee Baini page 93 line 10) "Your eyebrows are like a bow, from which the arrows of lust are coming out and striking us like the dagger" Dasam Granth Page 703, Line 1
Sikhism is the same as Judaism:

Why does it matter how many similarities there are between Judaism and Sikhism? How can you ignore the many differences? I bet there are plenty of similarities between Judaism and Islam. Will you say that they are the same religion? But you see, there are some crucial differences between them, primarilty the fact that Muslims do not believe in the termination of prophecy. Also because Sharia Law differs from halacha. That is just like Sikhism, which differs from halacha. In Sikhism, homosexuality is perfectly allowed. In Judaism, it is a horrible sin which is punishable by karet. So much so, that even gentiles are forbidden from engaging in homosexual relations. Why then, does Sikhism, which is targeted toward gentiles, not have a prohibition against homosexuality?
Sikhism is the same as Judaism:

I got worried for a moment when I read that, but then I clicked the link and realized that I was right (as usual). Sikhs do not believe in the Tanakh. You said that Sikhs believe in the Tanakh. That website says that they study scriptures from other religions (the Quran, New Testament, and Vedas are included in the category of "scriptures from other religions), but only adhere to the teachings of Guru Granth Sahib. Therefore, Sikhs do NOT believe in the Tanakh - and therefore you are guilty of, as I said above, outright lying. Also I like it how you focused on this one point (which you happened to be dead-wrong about - hahaha the irony) and ignored practically everything else I said. It's a sign that you don't know what to answer. In that case, why haven't you given up yet?
Sikhism is the same as Judaism:

Sikhs do not believe in the Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvim. Only syncretistic Sikhs like yourself believe in the Tanakh. The Tanakh does not have any place in the Sikh religion. You just made an outright lie in order to further your means. Not cool man. And the termination of prophecy is not vague.. It's a part of Judaism, and you wouldn't have a problem believing in it if you never heard of Sikhism. The Messiah is for the Jews, but it will also have a massive effect on the world, and the gentiles with it. And no, Sikhs do not believe in the Resurrection of the Dead. Another outright lie... Two outright lies in only four lines? Wow. Also, "most of the specifics that we have came from rabbinical whatever that doesn't even have any verses to back themselves." How many times do I have to tell you that Judaism does not only go by the verses? Moses our teacher, the same one who wrote the Torah, also told us a lot of things which he never committed to writing. Nevertheless, you are wrong. There are verses which speak of the Resurrection in detail. See Ezekiel 37:1-14 which describes the process in detail, and then prophecies that it will happen in the future (v. 12-14)
Sikhism is the same as Judaism:

Sikhs believe in the Torah, the Nevi'im and the Ketuvim, the termination of prophecy is vague enough as it is, the Messiah is for the Jews, Sikhs are not Jews, and they do believe in the resurection of the dead, just not in the same specifics because most of the specifics that we have came fro Rabbinical whatever that doesn't even have any verses to back themselves.
Sikhism is the same as Judaism:

Sikhism is not the same as Judaism... Here is a very simple reason: Sikhs do not believe in Jewish doctrines.- Sikhs do not believe in the Torah- Sikhs do not believe in Nevi'im or Ketuvim (Prophets & Writings)- Sikhs do not believe in the termination of prophecy- Sikhs do not believe in the coming of the Messiah- Sikhs do not believe in the Resurrection of the DeadOnly biased syncretistic Sikhs who have cognitive dissonance believe in Jewish doctrines. In Judaism, there is only Judaism for the Jews and Noahidism for the gentiles. That's it. Everything else is not up for discussion. There is no need for Sikhism. It is completely superfluous. What can a person find in Sikhism that he cannot find in Judaism or Noahidism? The G-d of Judaism would not give a third religion to the world. If He would, then He should have told us about it in the Torah.
Our society is at the worst its ever been.

My opponent didn't give a very thorough argument, probably because this is for introduction so I will refrain from giving a 10,000 character verbose ethical and moral lecture.On The Resolution: In order to fulfill the BoP, pro must demonstrate that there has NEVER, in the entirety of US history, been a worse society.Are There Societies In American History That Have Been Worse? YES!Early-Mid 19th Century Southern Society: What is the zeitgeist of this society? Slavery. Now slavery is pretty bad. I maintain that nothing you pointed out is as bad as slavery.Slavery:"Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work."Now I'm not a big racial pride person, but I am an African American/Mexican. In this Early-Mid 19th century society, I would not have been a person, I would have been property. As we all know, American Slavery was especially harsh. I maintain that most Americans would rather live in our current society than one in which slavery was legal.(Also women were treated very poorly as well).The Great Depression: Besides ruining many thousands of individual investors, this precipitous decline in the value of assets greatly strained banks and other financial institutions, particularly those holding stocks in their portfolios. Many banks were consequently forced into insolvency; by 1933, 11,000 of the United States' 25,000 banks had failed. 25-30% of the population was unemployed. Health was also abysmal.I am interested in seeing how pro will support that the aforementioned, are better societies.Good things about this society:1. Tolerance: Contrary to what pro says, this is obviously the most tolerant America has ever been. Throughout history gays have been prosecuted terribly and even killed, now 60% of Americans are for giving gays equal rights. Racial integration is the highest they have ever been. Women are doing the best they have ever done in the workforce. Sex is not repressed.This society is big on equality and tolerance.2. Technology: I hope I don't have to expand on this too much, but we are more technologically advanced than ever. Devices like iPhones and laptops, allow us to communicate easily and entertain us, as well as enabling and increasing efficiency.3.Pharmacological tolerance: 58% of Americans are for marijuana legalization. This is wonderful. Two states have even legalized it. All this does is give us more freedom. Also pro contradicts herself in this regard. Throughout the vast majority of American history, most drugs, especially marijuana have been legal. Seeing that it's now illegal, I thought she'd like society in this regard. I think the fact that there is not a profound societal stigma against drugs and alcohol, is a good thing.So pro seems to have a problem with drugs and sex. I'd like for her to substantiate her belief that these things are immoral.Sources: http://www.gallup.com...http://www.english.illinois.edu...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Our society is at the worst its ever been.

I believe that our society is at the worst it has ever been as the generations go on and on. Society has made girls/women think that there meant to be skinny and have large breasts and if you don't then your not a real woman or girl. Society has made boys/men think that there meant to have abs and be really fit in order to be hot. in our society everyone is supposed to have the same clothes and technology to fit in. Everyone's has to go by the latest trends. I'm not saying that everyone's judgemental but MOST people are in our society. More teenagers are think that the world revolves around them. The 21st century is the century when drugs alcohol and sex came to the normal, People would risk their own health by smoking just to look "cool" and make people think that their rebel and awesome. Drinking alcohol is like our freedom and fun at our parties and if your a virgin your not said to be free or "cool". Its LIKE people don't care if your 16 and pregnant but if your 22 and a virgin everyone's in shock. Back in our parents times if you did any of this people would be in shock and think what your doing is such a horrible thing or a crime; but to us its a normal thing. In conclusion I believe that our society is at the WORST its been. Thank you and good luck.
Purple is a calm relaxing color

Considering that purple is a calming color is a argument based off of mood. A color may be soothing but it has been also proved that certain colors shapes or even sizes are determined off of the way that that person is feeling. For instance the color purple may not be calming if someone only say a purple car when there parents where killed, don't you think that then that person would hate the color purple? Please do not copy and paste from a website why the color is calming.
Sexism against men

You say that male-only military conscription is not sexist, but an example of gender inequality. However, this inequality is a direct result of the choice by the government to conscript only men, i.e a conscious decision to discriminate. You claim that men are not being discriminated against based on their sexuality, however I never suggested that this was the case. The claim that women are our biological heritage and so need protecting is absurd, given that men are just as necessary for procreation as women. To say that women are more central to the economy is also ridiculous, given that far more men are in full-time work than women. You talk about "invisible barriers" to women getting jobs, but you don't say what these are. Why would women over 60 "become useless" to employers? Surely they are just as capable in non-manual jobs as younger workers? Surely being able to claim their pension 5 years early will make women less likely to progress in their careers, since they will be working for a shorter length of time? In short I have shown several examples of discrimination against men, which my opponent has not been able to justify. I therefore ask you to vote in favor of the proposition.
Sexism against men

Since the debate is about "institutionalized sexism", obviously we will be discussing legal matters. While in theory sexism is against the law in developed countries, in practice there are still many examples of it. Military conscriptionIn Finland, Norway, Switzerland and numerous other countries men over the age of 18 are required to serve in the military. Failure to serve carries a severe punishment, for example in Finland 182 days in prison (without parole). This does not apply to women. State pensionsIn the UK, Poland and Italy men can claim their state pension at 65, whereas women can claim it at 60, despite actually living longer! This means that women have a significantly longer retirement than men. Child custody Feminists (rightly) claim that gender roles can be reversed, that women can make good bread-winners, and men good stay-at-home dads. However, the courts slap this down by voting overwhelmingly in favor of women when it comes to child custody. For example in the UK in 93% of cases where parents break-up, the mother gets primary custody of the children. I hope these examples illustrate that there is still sexism against both women and men. Sources. http://www.guardian.co.uk...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Sexism against men

I understand and accept status and format of this debate. I will be Con, specifically debating, that men (first world countries) are treat equally by law and still at a social advantage with there gender. The debate may be nullified because legally sexism is against the law, smilier to racism. If Pro wishs me to continue this debate, he must agree to not discuss ANY opinions on legal matters of sexism (ie historical, constitutional and so forth) Sexism: Discrimination against people because of their sex.
9/11 was an inside job

How did building 7 fall at the speed of free fall even though it wasn't hit by a plane? How did fire melt steel? This is scientifically impossible. http://www1.ae911truth.org... This link has several more reasons that 9/11 was a conspiracy theory http://newsone.com... 1. Inside traders knew about attacks before they happened 2. Air defense was told to stand down 3. Planes didn't make Twin Towers collapse, bombs did 4. The Pentagon Attack doesn't scientifically hold up 5. Flight 93 was completely staged 6. Hijackers are still alive. How did their passports survive explosion? 7. Cell phone calls made from plane were faked 8. Jewish people knew attack was going to happen, took off work on September 11th 9. Black boxes found by search crew kept secret 10. The Bin Laden tapes are faked 11. Aluminum planes can't penetrate steel structure of world trade center 9/11 was staged no matter what sheeple say.
PATRIOTS-GIANTS SUPERBOWL!

The Giants might play with more heart but you're discounting several key factors. The Patriots have more experience. This is their 4th Superbowl in 7 seasons. The offense is pretty damn good. Belchick is incredible. He'll have the Patriots in Superbowl form in no time. I expect Brady, Faulk, Moss, and Maroney to come through. With that being said, the Patriots will be the better team and prevail. I do believe it will be a pretty close game but the Patriots are in search of football immortality and will not let this little roadbump stop them in pursuit of their goal. LET'S GO, PATRIOTS!
Resolved: A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment

you can't change the past but you can change the future" it is because of this historic quote that I affirm the resolution that Resolved: A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment. keep in mind that we cannot change the actions of the criminal so I will now define some terms for a better understanding during the round ought-used to express duty or moral obligation just society- a society that makes decisions that are morally right. my value for today's debate is the sanctity of life-The belief that human life is sacred in and of itself. Under no condition should a life be taken. my criterion for this debate is natural law which are the rights that every human is inherently granted examples include life, nourishment, the pursuit of happiness, etc. Con1- The death penalty is morally wrong If we enact the death penalty then we are no better than the criminal because both society and the natural law say that killing is wrong. so when we kill the offender we are now guilty of the same crime. B, it is unconstitutional. if we enact the death penalty then we compromising the entire integrity of the constitution because is specifically states in the preamble "we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" so if we choose to utilize the death penalty then we are undermining the foundation of American ideals C. Social contract- Although the social contract says that criminals need to be reprimanded for there action it clearly says that the sovereign does not have the right to make an individual kill itself for the good of the society Con2- natural law This needs to be the most important thing that someone judging this round needs to focus on. the natural law is the only way to obtain the sanctity of life when talking about the resolution. The second reason why natural law is the most important thing in this debate is because it outlines and guides us to what is not only the morally right thing to do but it also helps us organize Kant's categorical imperatives which in Kant's system states that natural has to be placed and the top of the moral ladder
Resolved: A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment

So my opponent dropped my entire case and where I come from the rule is if the drop your case the essentially agree with you. Now I'm going to tell you why that's important. First he is agreeing that it would make us no better than the criminal and since we both agreed that the act of the criminal was immoral we can conclude that the death penalty would make the hole society unjust and immoral which is the biggest point we have to look to in this debate. Next my opponent is agreeing that it doesn't fall under the social contract. This is HUGE because this takes away grounds for his justification of punishment argument 3 we need not enact the death penalty because it goes against the categorical imperatives. These are what acts are the most moral. Kant's categorical imperatives are one of the most known and widely accepted ideals from any philosopher and that is why it should outweigh any other ideals