BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
JW Ideology

Hi! As a Jehovah's Witness (JW), I believe that my religion is supreme. I believe in the 144K that will go to heaven, And I believe in 144 as a magical number. You might want to read some of my other debates: http://www. Debate. Org/debates/Only-144K-people-will-go-to-heaven/1/ I belong too the JW, The Nazis, And the KKK. My goal in life is to go back in time and nuke India so they won't stink up the world and worsen global warming. https://www. Reddit. Com/r/offmychest/comments/1r73nk/my_indian_roommate_is_fucking_disgusting/
teens vs. parents: whether parents should let kids get tattoos

Hello, I will be debating against the topic of "Teen vs. Parents: Whether Parents Should Let Kids Get Tattoos. My opponent said, "teens should be aloud to get tattoos at there parents cost instead of having to wait til they are 18 years of age." Well the key point is < >, because the teen has no way to tell their parents how to spend their own money. The parents can allow the teen to get a tattoo, but it should be of their own free will. The teenager should not be able to just give their parents a bill for a tattoo job, and the teenager used his/her parent's credit card.
'This statement is false' is a true statement.

Its unfortunate that my opponent could not debate in this final round. I'm sure that he was merely experiencing a busy week. We've all had to deal with this. Therefore I'd like to ask the voters of this debate to forgive my opponent for missing this debate. Since nothing further needs to be dealt with on the topic, I would like to note to the voters that my opponent (who has the burden of proof in this debate) has not fully proven the statement: "This statement is false" to be fully false. Therefore I would like to kindly suggest that voters vote Pro in this debate. Thank you once again to my opponent for an interesting topic and thank you for reading this debate. Please leave reasons for your votes in the comments section.
'This statement is false' is a true statement.

Ahh, I understand. This debate is essentially about proving the truth of a paradox. I would like to apologize to the voters and my opponent for misunderstanding the topic of the debate. Logical Proof of the truth of the statement: "This statement is false" So the hypothesis that it is true leads to the contradiction that it is false. Yet the sentence cannot be false for that hypothesis also leads to contradiction. If the statement is false, then what it says about itself is not true. It says that it is false, so that must not be true. Hence, it is true. Therefore by using strict logic I have shown how the statement: "This statement is false" is indeed a true statement. To give a more detailed example of this. We could easily re-write the statement: "This statement is false" To "This statement is only false" (consequentially the point that my opponent is attempting to prove) However The statement: "This statement is only false" is false. Creating a contradiction. However, that the liar sentence can be shown to be true if it is false and false if it is true which leads me to believe that the statement: "This statement is false" is neither true nor false. While my opponent has accepted my definition of truth which is that "something cannot be partially true" He has thus in turn accepted that the definition of false (truth's antonym) which means that "something cannot be partially false" to be false. Therefore as I have shown the statement "This statement is false" shows a partiality of truth. While I cannot prove that the statement itself is not Truthful in entirety, I have shown that the statement "This statement is false" cannot be completely false and thus is not false by definition. My opponent has been attempting to turn this debate into a debate of semantics where everything has a black and white value, but no gray. As is clear in life, sometimes gray values are the truth (being consistent with fact or reality) Therefore I would like to ask voters to see through the fog, and realize that the statement "This statement is false" is neither true or false but is neither. Such as all things are not black or white, but mostly a shade of gray. My opponent is attempting to point at a grey value and prove that it is black. However do not be deceived. I would like to thank my opponent for an interesting subject that I'm sure will provide many insight into the basic foundations of logic. I send my opponent my respects and I look forward to my opponents final round.
'This statement is false' is a true statement.

I accept my opponent's definitions. By these definitions, something not completely true is false. Something cannot be partially true. 1. My opponent has declared that that if the statement were referring to someone else's statement, then it would be true. However, 'This statement' is referring to the statement, 'This statement is false', and not someone else's statement. For further referrence, 'This statement' is referring to 'This statement is false'. Otherwise, it would have been, 'That statement is false'. 2. And my point was, "Should we assume it is true, then the statement would be false. So, the statement cannot be true." The debate over whether the situation can be true or not has been decided. My opponent cannot win. However, if I cannot prove that this statement is always false, then I cannot win, either. Here's the reasoning behind 'This statement' always being false: The opposite of a true statement is always false, but the opposite of a false statement can be either true or false, depending on the situation. For example, If 'That man is legally overweight' is a true statement, then 'That man is legally underweight' is a false statement. If 'The sky is currently blue' is a true statement', then 'The sky is not currently blue' is a false statement. So, a true statement's opposite is always false. However, a false statement's opposite is not always false: If 'That man is legally underweight' is a false statement, then 'That man is legally overweight' is not necessarily a true statement. The opposite of 'This statment is false' is 'This statement is true'. From here, we'll run this statement as initially true and initially false. If 'This statement is true' is assumed to be true, then the statement further declares its truth and then it's opposite is always false. Therefore, 'This statement is false' must be false. If 'This statement is true' is assumed to be false, then the statement being false is false its assertion that it is true. It is then completely false. Following earlier reasoning, the opposite of that statement is not necessarily true or false. Based on probability, the statement, 'This statement is false' is false three quarters of the time and true a quarter of the time. Therefore, it being not completely true, it is false. Using reason, one must conclude that 'This statement is false' is a false statement.
'This statement is false' is a true statement.

[Definitions] True - consistent with fact or reality False - Inconsistent with fact or reality [Primary Arguments] 1. While on the premises of my opponents it appears (colloquially) on both sides of the coin that this statement can only be false. However upon further review this hypothesis is rendered null. The reason? If a statement made by an individual is truly incorrect, and if a person observing said statement were to make a reply regarding said statement, then the validity of the statement: "This statement is false. " (in response to an incorrect statement) is correct. So in this instance the statement: "This statement is false" is proven to be a correct, and thus is a true statement. Since I have rendered this situation true, I have thus proven the validity of the statement: "This statement is false" While this should be enough to win the argument, I will further attack my opponent's statement. 2. Additionally this statement can also be false. So if my opponents objective is to resolve that the statement "This statement is false" can be false, then I do have to say that I concede this point. However if my opponent resolution (as I believe it is) is to prove that the statement: "This statement is false" can never be true, then I do have to contest this argument.
The right to chant at soccer matches should be protected from heterophobic extremists

I would like to quickly apologize for the first two broken links listed in my sources. If you click on them, then copy and paste the url from there, it should take you to the original site.Moving along, to respond to my opponent, even if Heterophobia is indeed a tangible mindset, its existence is irrelevent to the issue of homophobic comments being disbanded from soccer games. Also irrelevent is my opponent's assertion that homosexual males are inherently impaired in some form or another. My opponent has essentially conceded that the Football Association's decision, by motivation of the Stonewall campaign, is not legally infringing upon any rights, nor is it acting in a manner that is "wholly unwarranted". The remainder of the debate, therefore, will focus on my opponent's perception that since some taunts are allowed, homophobic taunts should be allowed as well. I will not argue on behalf of Stonewall's position, nor will I try to explain the logic behind their reasoning. I will say, however, that they have the freedom to criticize an aspect of the game if they feel it is infringing upon the identities of individuals involved--in this case, the identities of homosexuals. Again, what becomes of their campaign is up to the Football Association. Providing my personal two cents, I do not believe that Stonewall speaking against homophobic behavior is necessarily extremist. Campaigning for a civil envirmonment in which individuals are not subjected to verbal abuse seems like a reasonable cause. However, my opponent is under the impression that since Stonewall is supposedly the only group speaking against verbal abuse, they are therefore extreme in their actions. Would my opponent therefore say that, similarly, if three children are being bullied, and out of the three, only one child speaks up, that child is behaving in an irrational, extremist way? If the other two children are either content or too afraid to speak out against their condition, then that is not the fault nor the concern of the third child who did choose to say something. The same goes for the unemployed individuals who are taunted. If they are content and even mutually enthusiastic about the taunts, as it appears to be based on what my opponent has described, then that is the condition that have chosen to accept. I understand that sports incur excitable behavior that may involve taunts and jeers, but it is all in the spirit of the game--the key, however, is that the spirit of the game is mutually shared by all parities involved. If one party becomes discontent with the environment, that's when the spirit falters. Clearly, homosexual individuals did not feel that the taunts they were receiving were of good-nature. Therefore, that became reason for Stonewall to begin their campaign. But regardless the reasons behind Stonewall's campaign, ultimately, whether pushed by anti-homophobic advocates or not, Stonewall's campaign is justified and allowable based on the decision of the Football Association. Thanks again to my opponent for the debate. Sources:1) http://www.stonewall.org.uk...
The right to chant at soccer matches should be protected from heterophobic extremists

They say you shouldn't mock the afflicted and homosexuality is a disability just like any other, but there is a big difference between cruel and insulting verbal abuse and the light-hearted humorous banter you get at soccer matches, but some gay "rights" extremists don't see it that way. They object to certain humorous soccer chants that are directed at players suspected of being gay, for example: "He's queer, he's bent, his arse is up for rent! Ronaldo, Ronaldo!" "Sol, Sol, wherever you may be, Not long now until lunacy, We won't give a f*ck if you are hanging from a tree, You are a Judas c*nt with HIV' They are also opposed to chants which mock Brighton & Hove Albion supporters (Brighton has a large gay community), for example: "Does your boyfriend know you're here, does your boyfriend know you're here?" "You're just a town full of f*gg*ts, town full of f*gg*ts, you're just a town full of f*gg*ts!" "We can see you holding hands, we can see you holding hands!" "Up your arse, m'lord, up your arse, Up your arse, m'lord, up your arse. Oh m'lord, up your arse!" "You soft Southern poofters, soft Southern poofters!" "We drink cider, you suck c*ck!" "You're queer and you know you are, you're queer and you know you are!" "You only sing when you're bumming, sing when you're bumming, you only sing when you're bumming!" "We want you, we want you, we want you and your boyfriend too!" However certain heterophobic extremist groups such as Stonewall are campaigning hard to stop fans having a bit of a laugh at soccer matches by insisting the Football Association stop fans from singing comic songs that refer to homosexual gentlemen. Indeed, many fans have already beened banned from attending soccer matches, prosecuted in the courts, or both. This campaign represents a wholly unwarranted interference with a perfectly lawful leisure activity and is unduly restrictive, punishing individuals for singing songs they can and do sing quite legally in the pub and I, therefore, affirm that humorous soccer chants should be protected from heterophobic extremists. Thank you. Sources: ------------ http://www.dailymail.co.uk... http://www.dailymail.co.uk... https://www.stonewall.org.uk... http://www.thefa.com...
if we allow killing similiar to partial birth abortion... accidental birth killing should be allowed

if we would allow partial birth abortion, by extension, we should also allow killing the baby during an accidental birth that occurs during an attempted abortion. i would like a rhetorical debate. i am actually against this. but, i want someone who is for partial birth abortion etc but say they are against this to debate me. i am aware that partial birth is banned by federal law now... but it's a hypothetical debate. (we could also consider pregnancies that are beginning to be delievered, are aborted and then are removed, without a technical partial birth.) why allow one, but not the other? we might say that the birth point is our arbitrary magic point. but why is this arbitrary point of any true significance? the mother is not going to be hindered if we delivered the baby alive instead of aborting.... so her claim to body rights or emotional distress etc are just as valid or invalid with a born baby. we might decide that we have to decide a point... and any point will be arbitrary. and there's a slippery slope that cannot be escaped... any point you pick, a few minutes in difference is not really subtantial. but, why not choose a point that is at least more debateable to allow the abortion, and then ban it later on? if we're going that route, of banning abortion, that is, and trying to find points that are of worth in when to ban. if we are not trying to find a more plausible point... then why not follow partial birth to its logical conclusion and just kill the baby out of womb? ------------- life threatening issue etc. if the baby is inside the mother, but able to be delivered... we could require it to be delivered instead of aborted. the mother then doesn't have that life threatening issue. if we allow the killing two minutes inside when it could jsut as easily be delivered... why not two minutes outside? if we won't accept one.... we are forced not to accept the other. if we accept one, we are forced to accept the other. the only thing that con can argue is a technicality.. the birth canal as a demarcation of when abortion should be allowed. but he has yet to provide a reasoned explanation of how or why that point matters beyond what is essentially a technical point. a technicality
There is no possible way god exists unless you believe in utter hate and evil: Timmy Kinner

I think what you're not getting, is that I'm not FOR God, necessarily. Not even FOR religion. I'm trying to explain to you that since you're not involved in said religion, it's absolutely unfair to make judgments upon the entire group of people who call themselves followers of Christ. Or even the entire group of people that claim to "belong to a religion." May I remind you that your bio says that you belong to the religion of atheism. It may not technically be classified as a religion, but it sure as *Empirical Senses* functions as one. It functions as a belief system, as proven by your adamant behavior. "ThErE is nO wAy tO CIRcuMvENT tHis." You have an interpretation of The Bible that people who ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT AND BELIEVE IN IT can't relate to; so what's the point? The end-all I'm trying to lead you to is that you're arguing for nothing of real value. From what I can tell, you've devoted your life to pedantically "disproving" the existence of a being that none of the believers are going to simply stop believing in. What is your goal in this discussion? Throw a bunch of videos and verses that have been stripped of all context and laugh in my face? I don't believe in the EXISTENCE, I simply believe that there's meaning and value that can be gleaned from the teachings of this book. There was no requirement that I had to be Christian to debate you, but so what if I was? This would just be another hateful and worthless fight over an outcome that is the opposite of beneficial. The opposite of progressive. The opposite of what you say you're fighting for. What do you want, Michael? -Efron
Dating in workplace

Hello Solo, Thank you, we enjoy having you here on debate.org as well! :) I used "MAY" instead of "WILL" because I am a firm believer on "nothing is absolute". You know I should have used "WILL". That's what I have learned from you, thank you for pointing out. :) It's not simply being in fear not to, it's being wise and cautious. The paycheck is quite important nowadays, we have to pay extra caution on what we do/talk/dress... at work. Like you, I have seen employees dating at work too, some of them are doing great, some aren't! However, thinking of what will happen when a relationship between employees breaks apart. In many cases, they will handle it like adults and move on with their respective lives. In other cases, the resulting unpleasantness may require transferring one or both employees to new roles. An employee may file a claim of harassment, even if your policy is very clear and is enforced. In an extreme case, the emotional stress may lead an employee to lash out and commit an act of violence. Workplace dating will interfere with individuals' abilities to perform their professional duties as well. e.g.Imagine telling your girlfriend that she's fired? There is obvious potential for conflicts of interest between office situations and relationships. Thank you. I do agree the point that we shouldn't live in fear.
Dating in workplace

Hi NSG, I must admit you're a fast favorite of mine on Debate.org (even though it seems that we disagree on almost everything, HA!) and I thank you for proposing this debate. < > You MAY live a miserable and lonely life if you don't date a co-worker. You cannot live your life in fear of what MAY or MAY not happen. < > I don't agree with that. I think (upper) management can date subordinates. I've witnessed, first-hand, a very healthy dating relationship develop into marriage between two friends, where one was a manager and the other a subordinate. < > Life and love is all about complication. There are no guarantees, but it's not as volatile as you're suggesting. Embrace love and companionship where you find it, even if it's at work.
Dating in workplace

Hello Solo, I can see where you come from. There are a lot of single men and women who don't have the time to meet new people.After all, single young professional spend at least 40 hours a week there, with individuals of similar backgrounds and interests. Naturally, they seek their potential partners within their surrounding environment -- the office. What's bad about dating in workplace is that: It may lead to self-destruct.The fact that couples are in constant contact with one another day and night may cause friction within the relationship. I think you would agree with me that everyone needs "alone time" to pursue hobbies or hang out with friends/family, and the lack thereof may cause relationships to self-destruct. It's impossible to avoid the power aspect of your relationship. Ask someone who is a subordinate to go out on a date and you've crossed the line, you've compromised your professionalism and put them into an extremely difficult situation. Do they say yes because you're higher ranked (or, worse, their boss)? Do they say no and then fear for their job and/or evaluations thereafter? If they are higher ranked, what would other co workers say about you? They might talk bad about you, accusing you taking advantage of the relationship as the corporate ladder even if that's not your intention! In a word, it gets complicated when mixing love with work, therefore, my advice is that DON'T LOOK INTO WORKPLACE DATING. Thank you.
Dating in workplace

I have always been against office romance. I don't think it is wise to date in workplace, although I have seen people done that. We all know single people who spend most of their waking hours at work and it would be a dream come true for them to find love on the job as opposed to dealing with blind dates or even online matchmaking. But the downside is daunting: Those kisses by the copier can cost you your paycheck. Let's see how the rest of you think about this.:P
Dating in workplace

< > I agree with you completely, which is why I strongly believe that self-preservation will prevail above self-destructive behavior at the workplace, even in the event of a "falling out" where the dating ceases. People are able to maintain great friendships after failed intimate relationships all the time, everywhere you go! < > I'm glad that you were able to witness this for yourself and that you can agree with me! < > I couldn't agree with you more! < > That seems a bit extreme, but I'll give it to you that it "MAY" happen. <> Yes, those things "MAY" happen, but I haven't witnessed this rarity. I'd venture to say you haven't either, otherwise you probably would have mentioned it. It WILL be sad if you ignore oppportunity's knock, to later find it never had knocked at your door again. As *they* say, "Nothing ventured, nothing gained."