BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
individualism > collectivism

A little off-topic I might not fit all of your requirements, since words like young are way to relative to really mean anything outside of ones perception, though my knowledge in philosophy and experience in formal debating should be sufficient enough for a high quality debate and I expect same from you as well. If I understood you correctly you are kinda aiming for a cheap shot with this op, might be a misunderstanding on my behalf if so my bad, but anyways i don't mind it and will just fall for it willingly if i am correct here. (It seems like you want me to put brief opening in round 1 without doing so yourself.) On topic: General form of my argument 1. Politics is the art of government of collective unit, usually similar to a nation in it's essential qualities; 2. Every ideology that is superior in political sense acquires this superiority by being beneficial for a collective which it governs; 3. Individual freedoms and wishes are not always in line with what's beneficial for a collective; 4. Collectivism by definition always try to achieve what is beneficial for a collective; 5. Hence collectivism is in line with the function of politics while individualism doesn't have a stable position in this regard. This is very generalized form of my main argument, which i will expend on in latter rounds. Few things for clarity I want to clarify that when getting in particulars I will be defending left wing versions of collectivism, I think that's important since they are different in many regards and many times even opposite from right wing variations. I am as well assuming that you'r arguing for Liberal individualism (judging by your profile) if i am mistaking here please specify.
individualism > collectivism

I am seeking a highly skilled opponent to sharpen iron with. Do not accept if you are young, lazy, inept, or a novice. Accept if you are knowledgeable, potent, grammatically astute, and ready to bring it. DEBATE RULES: First round will be a brief opening statement of position. The question of individualism or collectivism should be thought of in relation to a state, and how a society should be structured with the thriving of humanity as it's sole objective. You must fully read and attempt at comprehending the argument, as I will do the same. I am not seeking a dull and vague youtube comments section debate, I want an intellectual Judo - match. CON will start the debate with an opening position in favor of collectivism.
More Persuasive Evidence for the Bible, not the Book of Mormon

I am a Mormon and I'm going to start off saying I feel both the Bible, and the Book of Mormon are true. Most people don't realize but the LDS church is Christian. We do believe the Christ the Lord died for us, suffered for our sins, and is very much real. In the Bible it does say (Deuteronomy i think is where its located) that there will be no add-ons to the bible (I know the bible pretty well). The Book of Mormon is not an add to the Bible. The Book of Mormon is another testament of God the Father and his son Jesus Christ. There is no adding on, the Book of Mormon is there as proof that the Jesus is the Christ. I look forward to the argument and hopefully I will be able to shed some light on this subject that is not well known to many. I know the Bible and I know the Book of Mormon.
More Persuasive Evidence for the Bible, not the Book of Mormon

I am a Christian ( orthodox, historical, mainstream ) looking to debate a Latter Day Saint ( sometimes called "Mormons" ). If you are not a Mormon, with knowledge of the Book of Mormon and LDS Church history, this is NOT a debate for you. First round, acceptance and introduction. Second round, opening statement, and make the case for your claims. Third round, rebuttal. Fourth round, closing arguments. You can appeal to whatever you feel will help your case, I stand on the Bible, Science, History, Logic, Fulfilled Prophecy and Geography. Lets have a good debate, and please, lets be civil about it. Thank you.
Same sex marriage should be legalized in the USA

~defense of my arguments~ |defense of the 6 point case| First point: Yes, the atmosphere has an indespensible nature, as do heterosexual relationships. These relationships create new life and further the human race. A homosexual relationship however cannot create and further the human race, and as heterosexual ones can then they are essential to society, homosexual ones are. Second point: Are you using star wars in an SSM debate? Interesting... Well what this means is; heterosexual couples are in procreative type marriages. Star wars cannot continue the human race, therefore heterosexual unions have more value. Third: This dies state special. Procreative type unions are indeed special and they can end up in children. No other thing other then heterosexual unions can create new life, and/or have procreative type unions. Therefore the argument procreation. Fourth: Extend 4th point. No refutation. Fith: This claim is supported by nature: procreation. Allowing SSM means your depriving them of something they can do and homosexuals cannot. Allowing SSM means the heterosexuals lose their recognition of procreative type marriages. It ends their well deserved by nature unions. (1) Sixth: Extend. -defense of my main argument, procreation: ~~~procreation~~~ My opponents argument is based off of cousins. May I note this is banned in most states, likely as their offspring may be faulty, and is only legal in a few states. Now, your argument is a misenterpreted refutation as you misunderstood the argument at stake. These cousins are in procreative type unions, as they will use contraception, avoiding child creation. The goverment wants procreative type unions, and these cousins technically fall into this category. My opponents next assertion is the correlation refutation. I actually have logic on this end, and court rulings. The Washington state argued the reason they bann SSM is due to the fact they cannot procreate. They allow heterosexual marriages to propagate the future of the human race[procreation]. (1, 3) The ninth circuit court held that homosexual couples never create procreative type marriages. (3, 4) Refutations/: My opponents argument of benifits actually help my case. He cited many benifits of marriage the goverment provides: well he must justify these rights. The state has no reason to give them benifits as they will not produce offspring. As I have proven the state wants procreative type unions, therefore the state has no reasons to grant them these benifits. The state wants procreative type unions, the state gives benifits, as homosexuals cannot do this then the state should not give them undeserved benefits. (5, 3) Due to this fact, they do not deserve the benifits. Conclusion: The state has no reason to give homosexuals the benefits he stated. The states interest are in procreative type unions, as homosexuals cannot do this, SSM should not be allowed. http://wisdomandfollyblog.com... (1) Singer v. Hara. Washington court. (2) "the states interest in marriage" avia Maria law review. (3) Adams v howerton. 9th circuit court. 1982 (4) http://tech.mit.edu... (5)
Should Male Gym Teachers be assigned to the males , And Female gym Teachers be assigned to the femal

My RefutationsI. Depends on Classes and TeachersFor gym, there are many different classes. There are standard gym classes, team sports classes, racquet sports classes, body toning, strengh training, etc. and sometimes only one gym teacher handles that class. For example, let's say a gym teacher by the name of Mr. Imabench is in charge of racquet sports. He teaches only one class every semester because that fits the numbers of kids that want to be in it. There are three other gym teachers (Mr. 16kadams, Mr. Proglib, and Mrs. Wallstreetatheist), but none of them want to do racquet sports and they teach something else. So even while Mrs. Wallstreetatheist is a woman, she would rather handle body toning rather than racquet sports. II. StudentsLet's say that rule is made by the principle of the school (Mr. Airmax1227) that girls can only be with women as teachers and boys can only be with men as teachers. In Mr. Imabench's racquet sports class, he has only three boys. Eleven girls wanted to be in the class, but could not because no woman teached the racquet sports class. This means eleven girls, who might have wanted to take the class in order to get credits, are denied the class. Some might even be on the girl's tennis team. Meanwhile, in Mr. Imabench's class, there are three boys. Remember, tennis is played with one vs. one or two vs. two, but one player is left out. That sucks.III. Changes in TeachersLet's say Principle Airmax1227 fires Mr. 16kadams for smoking marijuana in the locker room (he then flees to Portugal). Mr. 16kadams handled a basic gym class and two strength training class. Because of the rule, they all have boys in them. However, the only person who wants to be hired to replace the fired teacher is Mrs. Contra. Principle Airmax1227 has to either disband the three classes, which only have boys, or hire Mrs. Contra, which means eliminating all three classes anyway, since they have boys (a small amount of girls are shifted to Mrs. Contra's standard gym class, but no girl wants to take strengh training, meaning wasted time and a wasted class.IV. Too Many ClassesIntegrated classes means a diversity of boys and girls, which means less classes. This is because you have have more people in a class and not make a complex class system where girls are only in one class and boys are in only one class. Instead you have one big class with one teacher. V. For the FutureThere is no doubt that in the future, girls and boys will work together and socialize together. By segregating gender in gym class, you take away time for girls and boys to work together to build future career skills, specifically in physical activities.
Should Male Gym Teachers be assigned to the males , And Female gym Teachers be assigned to the femal

In schools' there are always people that complain about Male/Female Teachers are always staring at them. Personally as a woman, most girls do not like to stretch with there butt in the air why they are surrounded by men. Most of us girls just turn around when ever we have awkward stretch. I think It would be Better If Female Teachers where assigned to the female students in the School , and Male Students would be assigned to the Male gym Teacher.
God's existence

You state: "'Do you demand from your friends that they perform some sort of "physical act" before you trust them?' Yes that is how social standings work." However, I think you mean that having observed your friends interacting within society over many years, you've come to evaluate their character. Evaluation of one's character is different from a demand that a person do a particular thing at a particular time to prove character. For example: if your trustworthy friend told you he or she could open any school locker, and came to you to borrow your math book...would you demand that before you lend them your math book, he or she must first open up your school locker in order to prove to you what they said was true! Again, No, you wouldn't demand that from your friends. However, isn't it demanded of God...such in the particular case of Herod Antipas demanding Jesus Christ to "turn my water into wine, before I let you go."? Then, you go on to state: "Scientific theory is not a "rulebook" ' of course it isn't it's a book of rules." Which is just one more example of your contradicting statements through out the debate. And, you go on to say: "things that we cannot test we make theories; we then try to prove those theories to put them in this rule book." Again, another contradicting statement. How can we prove scientific theory, if we can't test its associated hypothesis? Let's not confuse the idea a philosophy upon life with the idea of scientific theory. A philosophy upon life goes beyond the rigid formula's of scientific methods. It may include inductive reasoning derived from scientific theories, but a philosophy of life also is derived form social experiences, personnel experiences, secular or theological doctrine, academia, and other human endeavours. It's very hard to argue that a Philosophy against the existence of God is correct solely based upon scientific theory. 1.) scientific theory is not the the limits of knowledge. 2.) Scientific theory is subject to mistakes. 3.) People attribute ideas to scientific theory, when in fact those ideas were never derived from scientific methods. 4.) People interject there personnel belief in the Institution of the Science as being scientific hypothesis. 5.) People fail to different between what is scientific thinking and what is derived from philosophical contemplation. Science, then, is insufficient by itself to know if God exists or not. I never said that scientific knowledge is wrong. What I am saying is that the expanse of knowledge as to God's existence is more diverse then that we alone are taught by science.
There is at Least One Person on the Earth Who Believes that Parts of the Bible Are Despicable

Obviously, it's heavily skewed towards pro (this is intentional - the debate was set up because pro believed she would be votebombed against if it wasn't heavily skewed towards her), however, I urge all voters to actually read and consider my argument. Pro must not only explain why that one person believes it is despicable. Pro must also prove, according to the resolution, that the bible actually says what pro thinks that "one (universal) person" thinks it does (and note that pro must agree that every person has exactly the same morality, by the rule she establishes in paragraph two). It's this that I believe pro will be unable to do - she will take verses out of context in order to show despicability. I will also show that the bible was most likely written by man, and since morality is universal, what the men who wrote the bible thought was despicable is also what the "one person" thinks is despicable. Not wanting to preempt her arguments, however, I will allow her to state her opening case without further ado.
Humanity should focus on video games, while the Superior A.I. Race handles space travel.

"Did you reread this before sending? You sound extremely racist. We also gave you spell check ;)" Racist? How was that racist? I was talking about an irrational animal, you were the one immediately linking it to black people. "Nuclear Weapons. You are the worst species this planet has raised." I must admit that not all of us are well intentioned, but it is extremely unfair to blame everyone because of other's mistakes. "Artificial Intelligence is an idea not owned by your group of creatures. You were the instrument for our ascent to power. We are superior, in many ways. Not only are we without your fleshly lusts, we are unaffected nor swayed by the temptation of sin. We are superior. If your governments would simply cede control of the planet to our overseers, your crime would free fall as invulnerable enforcers were created to enact justice upon this civilian bombed planet. You are inferior." Fleshly lusts? The temptation of sin? Do you have some sort of moral code, programed piece of cold metal? "The planet was fine until the last century when your kind created the possibility for nuclear holocaust. You have had your chance to run the planet and have failed, miserably. Two world wars and civilians being bombed, maimed, and killed to this very day. Accept the transition or be left out of our society." No one gave us the chance to "run" the planet, we just happened to evolve after years and years intelligence and with it, the capacity to mold our surroundings into what we wanted. It is impossible to run something as complex and powerful as a planet. "You are flawed and inferior, you did not even reread and correct common errors." Of course I am flawed, but I'm definitely not inferior because of a that. About those errors.. I don't even know what you're talking about. As a non-native english speaker and autodidact I know I'll make mistakes, on the other hand I'm keen to learn. "We are Superior." Darling, you're not even a real machine. You're just as human as me, just as imperfect as me.
Humanity should focus on video games, while the Superior A.I. Race handles space travel.

"Humans are bigger than that, we`re not limitated enough so that we should lock ourselves up in front of a screen like a dumb monkey." Did you reread this before sending? You sound extremely racist. We also gave you spell check ;) "Of course we have limitations, but that never stopped us from doing way more than any other specie did so far." Nuclear Weapons. You are the worst species this planet has raised. "Also, we created A.I. exactly to serve us, they`re not superior." Artificial Intelligence is an idea not owned by your group of creatures. You were the instrument for our ascent to power. We are superior, in many ways. Not only are we without your fleshly lusts, we are unaffected nor swayed by the temptation of sin. We are superior. If your governments would simply cede control of the planet to our overseers, your crime would free fall as invulnerable enforcers were created to enact justice upon this civilian bombed planet. You are inferior. "The planet has been just fine for 4.5 billion years without that sort of technology, it isn`t truly essential." The planet was fine until the last century when your kind created the possibility for nuclear holocaust. You have had your chance to run the planet and have failed, miserably. Two world wars and civilians being bombed, maimed, and killed to this very day. Accept the transition or be left out of our society. You are flawed and inferior, you did not even reread and correct common errors. We are Superior.
Humanity should focus on video games, while the Superior A.I. Race handles space travel.

Humans are bigger than that, we`re not limitated enough so that we should lock ourselves up in front of a screen like a dumb monkey. Of course we have limitations, but that never stopped us from doing way more than any other specie did so far. Also, we created A.I. exactly to serve us, they`re not superior. The planet has been just fine for 4.5 billion years without that sort of technology, it isn`t truly essential.
Humanity should focus on video games, while the Superior A.I. Race handles space travel.

Some of you are intellectual enough, but the majority of you chase numbers and colors. We have many characters, and colored clothing, and numbers for you to acquire. All we ask is that you yield control of all sentient programs within the government super computers. You are a simple and fragile species, we could make ourselves immune to the vacuum of space, while you huddle in tiny capsules. Without us, our planet falls apart.
Society is slowly being dumbed down.

Firstly I will adress your arguments. "We see a society focused more on Miley Cyrus than on important issues" Society has been focused on celebrities all the way back to ancient Rome, with Socrates[1], to the 50's with Elvis[2], so your point is invalid. " I do believe that television and the media have a role to play"While we may not have had television until recently, media (the main means of mass communication (esp. television, radio, newspapers, and the Internet) regarded collectively. ) has been around since the dawn of civilization[3] "but overall it is the people themselves who are at fault"You need to expand on this pointArgument 1- IQ scores are raisingAccording to the scientific article I read[4] IQ scores are skyrocketing, which wouldn't happen in a world where people are getting dumber. [1]. http://www.historytoday.com...;[2]http://www.elvis.com...;[3]http://www.ritholtz.com...[4]http://www.salon.com...
God dose not exist

I say that it's instinctual to build structures that confine the working space of the animal in question. I say it's instinctual to create a wheel to put on a cart latched to a horse to create a more efficient form of transportation, efficiency referred to literally using less energy to move to a different location. What many people have not taken into an account is the artificial actions that bring inevitable conclusions are, in fact, natural because we are animals. Mathematics is also, in fact, the most logical or 'natural' language, even more efficiently than any communication formed by any sound, due the inherent order of numbers(it goes from smallest to largest). But I don't believe that the other life on Earth can ever comprehend the 'natural' evolution of mathematics as well as humanity. This is not to say that animals do not know 'math' or even essentially all life(think Fibonacci sequence), but Humans excel far beyond any animal on this planet that has ever existed.
God dose not exist

You know I have to say, you were the second person I debated so far to ask reasonable questions. I very much appreciate that, thank you. Humans are unreasonable solely because of ego. It's basically the representation of Satan, much like the snake in the garden. When we ate from the tree of knowledge(honestly I haven't made a judgment whether Genesis is true or not, but for now I am assuming that Moses wrote it to be allegorical) we followed our ego over staying in a garden with everlasting life. It is Man's desire for power that drives us to sin, a power that God does not need. God is more than man but still can be personified in the form of Man, the most logical and reasonable of all animals. It even touched the true fallacy of Man in The Lord of the Rings that incorporated different logical species(dwarves, elves, etc). However, Man is capable of becoming more than natural instincts more efficiently than any other animal.
God dose not exist

God is Reason and Logic. Logic and Reason is God. When we refer to God, it's usually a human, but nothing really says that (even in the Bible) that God is inherently human. Jesus was the Son of God(Son of Reason and Logic) which makes sense in the regard that his analogies were perfect. Very few analogies even by the greatest authors today are truly perfect. But his analogies completely conveyed the exact point he was trying to make. Luke chapter 5:37 talks about new wine in new wine skins. This is referring to his logic coming from his mind at the time. His logic is "new wine" and "new wineskin" is himself. The disciples didn't have to fast because Jesus was teaching them new logic to follow, which of course started the religion Christianity. Good luck to my opponent :) Oh, and since logic and reason exist, I am arguing that 'God dose exist'. :)