BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Global Climate Change is a problem and needs to be addressed.

Everything you say about the environment and the state it is in is a political view point. Everything you say about the climate is a political view point. everything you say about the coming doom for humanity is a political view point. "CO2 does cause a warming. Its a simple fact. Carbon Gas has a unique chemical structure that allows it to insulate and trap heat. There fore if we pump massive quantities on a global level then if we tip the balance we will have warming. Its physically impossible to think otherwise" There are thousands and thousands of credible scientists that disagree with you. But the science does not matter it is a political view point. It is not settled science and you are a bald face liar when you say this. You still trust the words of a man who touts Hydrogen has the next great fuel source, Mind boggling. And now you expect everyone to believe what you say Now catalytic converters pollute the atmosphere, again mind boggling because no car in the U.S is allowed not to have one built after 1970 something I suppose you have a replacement for that right? It is your word against mine there is far more peer review evidence to disprove you that's why you have such difficulty coming up with peer reviewed sources to back up your claims. I don't believe you provided a single peer reviewed source. The study of the climate is a waste of tax payers money. Anything and everything that would contradict what you say will never be reported to the people to look at. The science is settled when it comes to studying the climate. It will all support the environmental movement and any contradictory evidence will be shelved or marginalized by politics. Name one scientists that will categorically state as fact and put their reputation on the line as a scientist that Co2 is causing the climate to warm. This should be really easy to do as it is "impossible to not think otherwise" All that really matters is this last question. I want to know who this scientists is and look at their research.
Resolved: An unjust government is better than no government at all

Thanks for letting me debate. I will be talking about how any government is better than none. First of all, like the great George Washington said, "We cannot have no government because its bad" Wisest words from one of our best American Senators. Without him and his government (which is more corrupt than North Korea) we would not be where we are today. Anyways, even if there was no government, people would form their own governments and make another George Washington.
White Nationalism is not inherently racist

Thanks OreEle for this opportunity to debate, I am happy to accept. Just a quick word on these definitions. White nationalism - While OreEle's definition here does not seem unreasonable, it is worth observing that his linked source does actually include the condition of an all white state. For OreEle's suggestion that "many white nationalists support a white state which has heavy border controls that allow non-whites in" to hold much weight, he should probably provide some kind of external evidence for this, particularly as the source he did provide seems to contradict it. It is perhaps also worth noting definitions of nationalism in general. http://www.google.com... Princeton wordnet has it as "the doctrine that your national culture and interests are superior to any other." Racism - There is no source for this definition but I accept Pro's distinction between inferior and different. I'd also like to point out the obvious fact that believing a certain race to be superior qualifies as racism just as much as believing one to be inferior. Inherently - Can't really argue with this definition. Thanks again, on with the debate!
White Nationalism is not inherently racist

White nationalism - "•White nationalism is a political ideology which advocates a racial definition of national identity for white people. " [1] Many definitions claim that white nationalism wants a 100% white state, however this is inaccurate because many white nationalists support a white state which has heavy border controls that allow non-whites in, but limits immigration so that they remain minorities. Therefore, the 100% white state cannot accurately be used as a definition. Racism - "The treatment or view, that someone is infearior because of their race. " This is oppose to simply viewing someone as "different" because of their race. Inherently - "built-in: existing as an essential constituent or characteristic" [2] My main arguement in this debate is going to be that extreme wings of white nationalism (namely white supremacism) have corrupted the public view of white nationalism really is, and so people believe that something is racist when only the extremes are. Thank you, [1] . http://www.google.com...= [2] . http://www.google.com...
Facebook does more good than harm

Let us begin! I agree on your definition.Rounds1. Acceptance2. Arguments (no clash)3. Clash4. Clash and ConclusionContentions1. Facebook can boost self-esteem[1]. Facebook profiles are self-affirming and getting looks improves our sense of self-image and self-worth. Read the article in the source. 2. Facebook can be used for organ donation purposes[2].275,000 people are tagged with organ donation status on facebook. This shows the enormous potential of social media. Facebook can save lives. 3. Facebook is a great way to connect with friends.This is an obvious argument. Messaging and walls are a great way to meet old friends and new friends. 4. Facebook can be used to start movements. Wael Ghonim, a google executive in Dubai, was scrolling through facebook one day when he noticed the image of Khaled Mohamed Said, a young man who had been beaten to death by the Egyptian police. Not only is this instance an example of using facebook to share information, Ghonim started a facebook page that protested against the Egyptian government for brutally killing this young man. The page had 300 members after two minutes! And three months later, a quarter of a million people had joined it. This page inspired many uprisings which eventually led to the famous Cairo rally, which caused Hasni Mubarak’s resignation. Facebook isn’t a trivial website, judge, facebook is a powerful tool that let’s people who have had their rights taken away fight back against the government. (nytimes) 5. Facebook is a strong way to promote and advance small businesses[3]. According to the Houston Chronicle, facebook does, indeed, help small businesses promote and expand. There are three ways it does this. a. One, facebook pages allows companies to have profiles where they can interact with their customers. Not only does this help with mailing lists and informing customers of changes via status updates, it also gives the company an online presence without having to make their own website. Emily Durham of Rice University found that customers that liked a restaurant on facebook spent more money and more regularly visited the restaurant. Furthermore, facebook makes it easy to share a company to your friends if you like it. This increases publicity. b. Two, companies can offer special deals to customers that like their page on facebook, increasing publicity and sales. Internal research done by facebook has shown that these special deals greatly increase sales. c. And lastly, companies can advertise via facebook. Facebook advertising is one of the cheapest and most efficient advertising methods on the internet (houstonchronicle). Not only does facebook provide an easy and affordable way to set up ads, it allows companies to target individuals based on what they like and better their advertising experience.Sources[1]http://thestar.com.my...;[2]http://www.npr.org...;[3]The Houston Chronicle
Buddhism

Thank you so much for your kind words and for answering my questions, and I really appreciate your answers and your questions too. The main thing that I would like to clarify is that people who appear on the media killing innocent people and doing nonsense stuff claiming to be muslims are in fact non muslims and they do not represent islam in any way or form. And I advise anyone who wants to know the reality behind Islam to read the Holy Quraan and listen to it as well because it is considered a form of mediation and read about the prophet Mohammed (Peace Be Upon Him) and his teachings ( http://www.cpsglobal.org... ). Because it really hurts when a stranger calls you a terrorist just because you're following Islam or covering your hair, it hurts being hated for no clear reasons and hearing hateful comments all the time. And the other thing that I would like to clarify is the misconception that islam oppresses women; Islam on the other hand gives men and women different roles and equity"between the two" is laid down in the Quran and the example of the"Prophet (peace be upon him). Islam sees a woman, whether " single or"married, as an individual in her own right, with the right to own and"dispose of her property" and earnings." A marriage gift is given by"the groom to the bride for her own personal use, and" she keeps her"own family name rather than taking her husband"s. Both men and women"are expected to dress in a way that is modest and dignified. The"Messenger of God (peace be upon him) said: "The most perfect in faith"amongst" believers is he who is best in manner and kindest to his"wife." Violence of any kind towards" women and forcing them against their"will for anything is not allowed. A Muslim marriage is a simple, legal"agreement in which either partner is free to include" conditions."Marriage customs thus vary widely from country to country." Divorce is"not common," although it is acceptable as a last resort." According to"Islam, a Muslim girl cannot be forced to" marry against her will: her"parents simply suggest young men they think may be suitable. (http://myf.org.uk...) Thank you so much for joining the debate I really had a fun time knowing more about buddhism and stating the misconceptions about my religion as well , Bless you :)
Buddhism

To be completely honest with you I myself think that Buddha is a wise man and I do like some of his teachings, but that doesn't make him perfect as he is not a prophet and nobody is perfect except them . I do have some questions if you don't mind answering: 1- I've seen many Buddhists offer the Buddha statue food asking for a favor, so I wonder if Buddha has a special power to make whatever they ask for comes to reality? 2- I've heard a buddhist say in a documentary that drinking alcoholic beverages and steeling and lying leads you to hell, so do you believe in hell? 3- What is the reason that many buddhist seek the Buddha for mercy? PS: since buddhism is philosophy and islam is a religion I really do agree that it wouldn't make sense if we carried on with this debate. So if you want us to stop debating we'll go ahead and do that, and if you will we can make it a platform to clarify wrong facts about buddhism and islam. Resources: http://www.buddhanet.net... Best regards, Aicha
Buddhism

I to would very much to keep it respectful. As you've requested here are the statement to start off. 1. The essence of Buddhism is not a religion but mainly a philosophical system. 2. Buddha is not a prophet but human-being. 3. Buddha came to realization and awaken on his own. 4, The teaching includes the 4 Noble Truth and The Eight Fold Path. 5. The goal is to obtain enlightenment in the state of Nirvana. 6, Belief doesn"t have anything to do with Buddhism. Not sure how this debate will work being a philosophy debating a religion is like an apple to an orange, but I"ll take on this challenge.
Buddhism

I started this debate not willing to hear any hateful comments, I just want debate with a buddhist to prove my point of view. In this round we will state what we believe in: 1- I believe in one and only god 2-I believe in prophets including Jesus, Solomon, Joseph, Moses and etc. 3- I believe that the prophet Mohammed was the last prophet sent by god 4- I believe in the holy Quraan and believe that it's the last book sent by god 5- I believe in miracles 6- I believe in the day of judgement 7- I believe in heaven and hell
the ACLU is a criminal, communist group and should be disbanded by the justice department

>>You are certifiably insane. This is not an attack. It's a statement of fact. You really don't have everything right upstairs. ---- Again, the ACLU is not criminal. They defend civil liberties. Again, the ACLU is not communist. They defend civil liberties (and communists don't tend to have them). Again, the ACLU cannot be disbanded by the justice department. They are a non-profit group which defends civil liberties. Porn may not be everybody's bag, nor protecting free speech from hateful people, but the ACLU protects the civil liberties of all Americans. As such, they defend civil liberties from all erosion, not just at the point where you think civil liberties should start (I'm not really sure if you believe in civil liberties at all). However, no part of protecting civil liberties qualifies as anything you put in the topic. Baldwin wrote a book The New Slavery condemning communism, and in the 40s lead the campaign to get rid of the communists from the ACLU (not that there were many).* * I only address this because it actually hinted at the topic at hand. Again, seek help.
the ACLU is a criminal, communist group and should be disbanded by the justice department

The ACLU protects civil liberties. You are certifiably insane. The ACLU protects civil liberties. The Boy Scouts are a private organization with discrimination (anti-gay, anti-atheist) as a policy. However, they still receive federal funds. This rightly should stop. They can only have the funds or the discrimination, not both. The ACLU protects the civil liberties of the military, Christians, and all citizens. 1) Prostitution should be legalized. Keeping it illegal promotes pimps and back alley deals. Regulation in daylight will protect women from abuse. 2) Pornography is free speech. 3) Drug criminalization has done more harm than good. 4) There's nothing wrong with homosexuality. 5) The government use and forced rating system from within the industry would be prevented if the state had control. However, due to the private nature of the MPAA you either censure your film or you make no money. 6) You should not need your parent's/spouse's/pet's permission to have a medical procedure regardless of your age. 7) When the remainder of somebody's life is pain, they should be allowed to end it. Mercy isn't evil, it's human. However, none of this makes the ACLU criminal, communist, nor *ABLE* to be disbanded by the justice department. It's independent. Your suggested remedy is non-existent as a possibility. Again, you are insane. Secondly, I seriously doubt you're actually a Buddhist. I don't even think it's possible that you were a Buddhist in a past life (I've never heard of a Buddhist with karma *THAT* bad). I do, however, urge those of you with some biases on this issue to do some research. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.aclu.org... Even those of you who realize that the ACLU isn't criminal nor communist, nor able to be disbanded by the justice department, may still have a falsely negative view of the ACLU. There probably won't be much debate as solarman usually drops into incoherent ranting shortly after his fingers hit the keys. Which is not to say you shouldn't verse yourself on the issue and perhaps rid your self of a bias (or become more grounded in your beliefs) because of Solarman's activities. Observe: Not all Muslims are evil. -- Expect a few paragraphs about how evil and Satanic Muslims are; don't bother to read those paragraphs.
Human euthanasia should be legal because it is morally and constitutionally sound.

Human Euthanasia should not be legal. Argument 1: Careful Consideration?You say the following: "When pain and suffering makes it so that life is no longer worth living, it should be a choice that has been taken into careful consideration but ultimately available to all." Where is the line between careful consideration and uncareful consideration? Is consideration discussing with your family or getting professional help? There is no way to describe objectively whether someone has taken a decision into consideration.Argument 2: Constitution and familyI'm actually surprised you brought the Constitution into this. I do not think the Founders were referring to euthanasia when they wrote the line about security of blessings. In fact, the line continues to say "...to ourselves and our posterity," referring, of course, to children and future generations and their rights as well. This is interesting because it presents yet another point: what if children do not want to lose their parents? What if they want to protect them because they believe there is a better way out? Again there is such a blur in morality and ethics when talking about death. The fact that we already have laws concerning murder and manslaughter should negate euthanasia to begin with; even if we did make it legal, I can guarantee there would be hundreds and hundreds of conditions and footnotes that it would be better off to make it simple and say, military and self-defense aside, no human can kill another human.I look forward to my opponent's response.
Human euthanasia should be legal because it is morally and constitutionally sound.

Human Euthanasia is currently only legal in three states; Oregon, Montana, and Washington. It should be legal in every state. It is a morally sound practice that should be legal in every state. When pain and suffering makes it so that life is no longer worth living, it should be a choice that has been taken into careful consideration but ultimately available to all. Regulated as any medical procedure it, the ability to choose a peaceful death with the love and care of your family around you should be available to all. It says in our constitution that the government will secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves. It is our liberty to choose whether we may end our lives on a note of horrible pain, drug induced-comatose status, or one surrounded by family and able to say goodbye to those we love. Therefore Euthanasia for the Human man or woman is legally and morally sound.
Determinism renders moral responsibility impossible

Firstly, I would ask that we consider that the distinction between our mental state and the physical state of our brain is existent only in semantics and debates regarding Cartesian (mind-body) dualism. That I reject Descartes' view of the mind/body separation is apparently what has prevented me from understanding Con's argument fully. In response, our mental states (happy, angry, sad, desire etc.) are merely the product of neuron interactions and neurotransmitters in our brains. That we address the same thing by two different names is not proof that there are in fact two things. Con's argument for soft determinism does work to support moral responsibility, and if he could show that mental states are independent of physical ones (and therefore not subject to natural laws or forces) I would concede the argument immediately. As it stands, I remain unconvinced. (Note Con's own assertion: If it's true that an action which is determined by a desire can engender moral responsibility, then Pro's 3 is false.) As far as I can see, Con is arguing that an action determined by desire is subject to moral responsibility. I would argue that you do not control your desire, as it is in itself merely a physical phenomenon, the product of forces and laws that you do not control. It is the result of your neurochemistry, a state that you are in that you have no control over. With this in mind, I very much do object to the idea that a desire can engender moral responsibility. How can you be accountable for an action undertaken as a result of, and which the outcome is determined by, a series of physical laws? If Con showed that you could directly control your desire, he would have demonstrated moral responsibility, as your actions would result from something that you directly controlled, and therefore would be accountable for. Also, whether or not you give in to your desire is also outside your control - recall my argument in Round 1 regarding neuron reactions in the brain (Libet et al., 1983) - your brain has decided what to do three hundred milliseconds before you have. Your conscious self is being dragged along with no say in the matter. If Con had demonstrated that your conscious self existed independent of physical laws, then he might have had the foundation of an argument. What Con is effectively doing by putting forward soft determinism as an response is saying 'your actions aren't determined by X, which you couldn't control and therefore would not engender moral responsibility, but your actions are determined by Y (which is the same as X, except under a different name), which does engender moral responsibility'. The contradiction in this assertion should be evident. I would like to thank my opponent for accepting my challenge and for defending his chosen position as well as he has. I now hand the debate over to him for any closing remarks he would like to make.