BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The enlistment age for the military should be raised

I thank Benny for hosting this debate.Benny opens up by saying Teens don't have practical life exprience, but doesn't expand much further. Teens probably will pick up on the concept of paying bills, taxes and the such through simply living life, in the military or not. A major difference however is that you can leave college whenever you want (although if you are far along it is not advisable). Not so with the military, you are locked into a contract (5 or 6 years are common) and can’t get out except in very special circumstances. In college you get the major you sign up for, in the Military you MO can change without your choice.I'm not sure where you got the idea someone could 'leave' college. You would still be in debt. Nonetheless, your points don't seem to be specific to the ages of 18-21. Why 21? Why not 25? Also, is there a clear avantage to delay 18 year olds admission n the military? There really isn't. Benny brings up that the Army pays for college. Hypotheically, one could join the army at 18, leave at ~22 and have college paid for. This is not uncommon. It is irrelevant that college is less dangerous then the military, as someone will willing take that risk. To recap;Joining the military gives people an edge in Law Enforcment It also helps pay for collegeIt simply might be something someone wants to do.Benny fails to fufill his BoP because I have shown that there is logical reasoning why a 18-yo should be allowed to enlist, while Benny fails to explain why the status quo should change.With that, Vote Geo.
.9999...Repeating exactly equals 1

I am sorry to hear my opponent concedes.In the mean time here is another example:1/3 + 1/6 = 1/2 if solved using fractions..33(33)... + .166(66).. = .499(99)... If solved using repeating decimalsSo .49999999.... equals 1/2 or .5It's 2 different ways of saying the exact same thing.Some interesting video on infinityVote Pro
The color yellow is gay

Get your mind out of the gutter. Gay meaning happy. Yellow is a happy color. Sheesh.Yellow is a happy color. The sun is yellow. It makes us happy when we stare at it. Actually nevermind, just when we are in the sunlight it makes us happy and gay.Yellow flowers make us gay. I love yellow flowers and they sure make me gay as can be, they might not make you gay if you are allergic to them so I'll give more examples.Yellow diamonds make us happy. They are soo pretty!
The color yellow is gay

The first Green Lantern was a gay superhero, whose weakness was wood [1]. The second Green Lantern's weakness was yellow [2]. Therefore, yellow is an anti-gay color, thus it cannot be gay itself. And, there is nothing that is more anti-gay (happiness), then causing a gay man to lose his job. 1. http://gawker.com... 2. http://www.dorkly.com...
Irony in the belief that welfare and abortion can both be opposed.

I disagree with the way our welfare system is , again I will state that while I do not disagree that welfare can be a good thing and is needed. I do thing there needs to be serious steps in fixing the welfare system. As it stands now , it is being abused and isn't as helpful as it should be . So again that is why I stated in my profile that I disagree with welfare , there are many things on the profile that to me aren't black and white. ie. I haven't responded on the death penalty because to me it is not just black and white . I do 100% disagree with abortion in every way.
Irony in the belief that welfare and abortion can both be opposed.

Again I am not sure I understand what you are trying to debate me on , you challenged me as to why I believe in both , I told you , what exactly do you want to debate me on. I told you my views on welfare. I do not have a problem with welfare , but the system in seriously flawed as are some social programs that we have . I know people that get the Gov't to pay for most of their rent , yet they have never worked and their youngest child is 8 years old. I know drug addicts that recieve EBT cards , yet do not support their children. I know people that get the Govt to pay most of their rent , yet they have other adults living with them with income that they do not fess up about. So yes I do not believe I should have to pay someone's rent because they just do not like working. I don't think my money should go into an addicts pocket when he is not even forced to pay for his children. So you are right I have some problems with the welfare system as it is now. i do not think that welfare should be eliminated completely , however on the profile questions I had to choose one or the other and since I do not agree with the way it is currently run , i chose disagree. Okay you state that all those children that are aborted would need welfare , eyt you just proved the numbers of women that would need wefare is 50% not 100%. There is no reason a woman can't give up her child for adoption. If you agree that abortion is wrong , what exactly are you debating me on????????
Irony in the belief that welfare and abortion can both be opposed.

Although I prefer that this argument be focused stronger around the conflict in supporting the abolition of both, I will refer to statistical evidence for a rebuttal. As for the poor not being the primary users of abortion procedures, according to www.Abortionno.org(an anti Abortion website I provided as statistical evidence so that bias is of no concern) nearly 50% of all women who have the procedures live below the poverty level. Adoption is a beautiful, selfless, process that many more women should engage in. However, the system which is supposed to be a proponent of the such, deters individuals from doing so by increasing the complexity beyond an individuals ability to work with the system. It's to complicated. Lets try to remain on course from here on out. Public welfare and abortion are two principles that cannot be denounced together, logically. Ethics? Well, now that's "To each their own". http://www.abortionno.org...
Irony in the belief that welfare and abortion can both be opposed.

A great deal of Irony exists in your stances of Socioeconomic topics. Especially in regard to abortion and subcatogrized beliefs that conflict with your own mindset. On the surface you state that you have a disposition towards it. As do I. However, you also state you are not an advocate of Welfare either. My initial question to you is with 1.4 million abortions a year, that's 1,400,000 children that would be hitting the streets each year, how do you propose to fund their existence without welfare? I do suppose they could always fund themselves by robbing us and commiting lucrative crimes for the next 18 years. I don't have a problem with welfare completely , I feel the system needs to be changed. I don't think it should be eliminated completely , however as its just an option of agree or disagree I must say disagree as I do not agree with the current welfare system that is in place. It doesn't help longterm and some people abuse the system. As for saying that the 1.4 million kids that are aborted would all need welfare to survive , thats not true. Not all women that get abortions are poor and need government assistance , not to mention some of those kids that are aborted could be given up for adoption if the mother truly didn't want to have a child. There are wealthy women that have abortions as well as poor women.
Irony in the belief that welfare and abortion can both be opposed.

A great deal of Irony exists in your stances of Socioeconomic topics. Especially in regard to abortion and subcatogrized beliefs that conflict with your own mindset. On the surface you state that you have a disposition towards it. As do I. However, you also state you are not an advocate of Welfare either. My initial question to you is with 1.4 million abortions a year, that's 1,400,000 children that would be hitting the streets each year, how do you propose to fund their existence without welfare? I do suppose they could always fund themselves by robbing us and commiting lucrative crimes for the next 18 years.
if Florida disagreed with the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and wanted to become an independent co

---1C1. Economic CostLeaving the United States is just not economically worth it, or even feasible. The vast majority of Southern States, including Florida, give FAR less in taxes to the Federal government than they recieve from it. In other words, the Feds and the North are subsidizing the South and West [1]. Currently, due to the effects of the Recession, ALL states are recieiving more money from the Feds than they give back -- but Florida takes much more than it gives, taking $1.20 for every $1.00 it gives [2]. What does this mean? This means that taxes in a seceeding Florida would rise to cover the welfare of all of the elderly, homeless, and unemployed. (Alternatively, you could let them starve in the Great Nation of Florida and save a few bucks. )This doesn't even include the cost of buying all U. S. Federal property back, including all naval bases, all army bases, all scientific bases, and government offices. Moreover, the new nation would need to set up an entirely new bureaucracy to run everything -- from scratch. This would worsen markets and dissuade investors and tourists, who would also be concerned about security in an entirely new nation. Tourism currently builds 121,000 jobs of average income $43,000 [3]. Expect that to disappear, as well as exports and other industries. Who wants to get a passport just to go to Florida when there's Louisiana or Georgia or South Carolina, and Florida has entirely different laws? Who wants to invest in a new country with changing bureaucracies and unstable manufacture? ---1C2. Legal and Military FailureIt's illegal for a state to secede [4]. The Constitution does not allow for it, and neither does the Supreme Court. While you could argue that you would just militarily escape from these laws, we can look to the wonderful example of the Confederacy, which was crushed by the stronger economy and military of the United States. There is simply no way that Florida could possibly survive, especially because it's smaller than the Confederacy was, the Union is bigger than ever, and new technology favors the Feds. ---In sum, it would kill the Florida economy and it would never work. Moreover, who cares about Obamacare? It's just one law, that WILL work, and that GIVES money to Florida to deal with the sick. Great deal, huh? ---References:[1] . http://www.marketwatch.com...[2] . http://www.motherjones.com...[3] . http://floridataxwatch.org...[4] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Train track descion

Before Debating I would like to note that this is a debate and opinions must be respected. Though I may not be agreeing with what I'm saying I will do my best to argue against the opposite side. Since thats over lets begin. First of all why exactly would you save them. I have not seen any claims supporting your thesis. Second, what makes it more morally ethical to murder 1 to save the rest than letting them all die. Is there no other solution to the problem? Heres a sub-scenario in this scenario. What if the person you killed was a friend. Do you kill him to save the life of other strangers or save him but let the other die. Most people would save their friend as they are valued more than the other people as they don't mean as much to them as their friend. This shows that people are more inclined hold on to things that are more valuable to them rather than things that are not as such. In this case the valuable would be that person and the less valuable thing would be the other strangers. Another thing to consider is the backstory of the people in this scenario. If we know one of the 4 survivors is a terrible person who cause great harm.Then this can greatly alter our decision. Once again it can conflict with out first sub-scenario. This proves the Right-Intention Condition and The Proportionality Condition written by Aquinas, a Catholic Priest and a philosopher. To delve further into this the Right Intention Condition states that the "intention must be the achieving of only the good effect with the bad effect being only an unintended side effect. The bad effect may be foreseen, but not desired." The Proportionality Condition states "the good effect must be at least as morally good as the bad effect is morally bad. (https://welovephilosophy.com...) It is safe to assume that though our intent may be good there will always be an opposite of effect of our actions. This brings us back to the first question, "would you pull the switch to murder 1 person while saving the other 4 or let them all die?" My final answer is yes and no. It all depends on the effects of your actions. I honestly think this is a really interesting topic. I can tell you get this from the trolley problem.
Legalised homosexual marriage everywhere.

Also I would like to welcome him to DDO since this is his first debate(allegedly). I as Con will be arguing that homosexual marriage should not be legalized everywhere. "My first point in why I think that it should be legalized is because of how badly they are treated already. .. .. People that hate homosexuals are just homophobes- Meaning that they are /scared/ of them. Why fear something that has just as much probability of hurting you as a heterosexual? ? "First and foremost, just because someone hates something does not mean they fear it. Phobia refers to an irrational fear[1]. Homophobia suggests one fears homosexuals. Fear and hate are two different emotions that result in different actions. So just because someone hates homosexuals does not mean they fear them. Fear suggests someone would run away or avoid[2]. While hate suggests someone might attack[3]. Legalizing homosexual marriage would not make them instantly be treated better either. Phobia:"A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous. "[1]. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...Fear: "A feeling of agitation and anxiety caused by the presence or imminence of danger. "[2]. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...Hate: "To feel hostility or animosity toward"[3]. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... "As if homosexuals weren't already judged and getting constantly stereotyped"What difference does this make? I would question who in this world is not judged or stereotyped. To not be judged suggests one must not even exist to be judged. "now they are being denied their right to be able to have a secure and official bond of love like heterosexuals. .. . Of course, love does not need to be proven by a marriage, but that right should still be allowed. "How can they be denied a right which they didn't possess before? And marriage of any sort is not a right either. Here is my points of why homosexual marriage shouldn't be legalized everywhere:1. There are many places in the world that don't tolerate homosexuality[4]-Therefore legalizing it would only provoke more violence against homosexuals. [4]. http://www.npr.org...[4]http://www.irinnews.org...[4]http://www.dw.de...
Legalised homosexual marriage everywhere.

I believe that homosexual marriage should be legalized everywhere and allowed just as much as normal marriage. I am one that will happily keep this topic of debate going for as long as it takes to get homosexual marriage noticed and given as many rights as heterosexual marriage. My first point in why I think that it should be legalized is because of how badly they are treated already. When a heterosexual finds out that someone they know is homosexual, that person probably avoid them at all costs from then on, as if they could catch the 'disease that made them homosexual' or as if the homosexual would start hitting on them. People that hate homosexuals are just homophobes- Meaning that they are /scared/ of them. Why fear something that has just as much probability of hurting you as a heterosexual?? As if homosexuals weren't already judged and getting constantly stereotyped and now they are being denied their right to be able to have a secure and official bond of love like heterosexuals? Of course, love does not need to be proven by a marriage, but that right should still be allowed.
1946 Nazi Germany vs the USa

Sorry i ff'd the last round, it was the weekend :P. As you say, Germany would win because they had enough to win against the Soviet union? You need to remember, Germany doesn't have unlimited Resources or Manpower. Industry wise, the USA towered over Nazi Germany. From 1941-1945 we were producing more than double of what Nazi Germany was producing. Eventually Germany would run out. I do not believe that the USA nor Germany would be able to make a direct invasion of eachother. Germany certainly couldn't, the USA's naval power was staggering. So then, Operation Torch comes into play, the invasion of North Africa. Invading through Africa would divert more is not most of Germany's manpower there, giving us an opportunity to invade through Scandinavia for example. Also, not to mention the staggering amount of Aircraft the Americans possessed by 1945. German Panzer divisions would be caught by the USAF. Thus, i close my argument. Also sorry again i FF'd the 2nd round, i forgot over the weekend that i had a debate going.
1946 Nazi Germany vs the USa

The debate is simple. If Nazi Germany had subdued Britain in 1941, and then went on to defeat the Soviet Union and win, and was left to tend with the USA. Who would win? Note, in this scenario Japan has surrendered in 1945. Structure: Round 1 - Opening Statement. Round 2 - 4 - Arguments/Rebuttling Round 5 - Closing statement/conclusion. Opening Statement: I believe that if it came to a cold war situation between the USA and Nazi Germany, the USA would prevail, or it would end in stalemate. I'am for the USA. I will provide my strong arguments in the arguing rounds of this debate. Goodluck to whoever accepts it. This is a re-do, being as the last one i did, the Person who accepted it did not read the structure, nor did he pay any attention to it.
EATING VEGETABLES IS BLOODY MURDER!!!!! nac

First off, Con tries to define words. That is extremely rude, as he is the guest in this debate. I do not accept his definitions. His arguments are based on these definitions.He then does some nerdy-arse scientific mumbo-jumbo, which I'm sure the voters (who aren't geeks or nerds) will i-i-i-i-i-ignore for its only-nerdy-geeks-can-understandiness. I'm sure that Con just made it up to seem impressive, but to any intelligent (but not super-nerdy) people (like the voters), it's just really geeky and weird. It may even cause this debate to be cancelled by customer support or something.My casehttp://goo.gl...My argumentsThere are more reasons why eating veges is malicious murder: it's that vegetables are just in disguise. Yes! Vegetables have all this super-techno powers which gives them the power to feel pain. But since vegetables (like people who vote against me) have no brain, they only gave themselves the power to feel pain, and not any super-intelligence or the ability to enslave humans or anything like that. This is a picture that proves me right. It's what vegetables feel when we shove them down our gobs: Gotten from here: http://www.beorangedesign.com...I understand that a lot of the generous voters on this super site are from America, so I'll make a few translations to make my arguments bilingual:Bloody - This is just a pointless adjective used for effect; commonly used when my Dad is in pain. [2] Another reason eating vegetables is murder is because I define it as [1]:Murder (noun) [murr-derr] - 1. The process of eating vegetables. 2. Killin' stuff 3. The process of eating meat.Let it be noted that as the host of this debate, I can introduce and abolish definitions when and where I like. Also, definitions are only official when I say they are.Also, my case from round 1 is completely correct, as vegetarians/vegans are 100% correct when they say that eatin' meat is murder. The KingDebater's guide to truth confirms this and explains it further [3].I thank you.
EATING VEGETABLES IS BLOODY MURDER!!!!! nac

What constitutes Murder The oxford dictionary defines murder as “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another” [1], or in the sense used in the resolution “the premeditated killing of one organism by a similar organism”. In order to prove murder one must prove; 1.) The murderer directly caused the victims death 2.) Similarity between the murderer and the victim 3.) premeditation Vegetarianism is not murder, because it does not involve the premeditated killing of a similar organism. Slaughtering flesh and blood animals for food (especially mammals) is not only an act of murder, but also a form of cannibalism. I am not a vegitarian because it is murder, but rather because I see it as canibalism. When animals are raised for the sole purpose of slaughter, than the killing is premeditated. Because the animals are made of blood, flesh and bone, eating their flesh is an act of canibalism. Especially if the animal is a mammal, or even worse, a primate. Pro’s Case Pro’s case revolves around the belief that animals must die for plants to live, thus eating plants is murder. In actuality it is the opposite; plants must die for animals to live. You grow a potted plant without slaughtering an animal to grow the plant. Furthermore, another plant does not need to die for the original plant to grow. Pro misunderstands the law of conservation of energy. It is true that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but an organism does not have to die for another to gain energy. Plants gain energy from the sun, in a process known as “photosynthesis”. Also, plants can gain nutrition from decomposed leaves and fruit, as well as animal feces; none of which requires the killing of plants and animals. In addition to these more obvious fallacies, pro also assumes that all death is murder. Not all death requires the organism to be killed, and killing is only murder if it meets the above circumstances.
EATING VEGETABLES IS BLOODY MURDER!!!!! nac

'Veges', as these meat-wasting sandal-wearing megaphone-holding sign-waving vegetarian types insist on calling them, are thought to be immune to legitimate criticism. By the end of this debate, I hope to have changed that.So, here comes the argument. Vegans are always blabbing on about how eating delicious mouth-watering bacon burgers is 'morally wrong', 'BLOODY MURDER' and 'totally gross!' They say this because an animal died for you to be able to eat it. However, this also means that eating 'veges' is all of those bad things, because as all intelligent people (like the generous voters!) know, the plants that vegetables come from would not have the energy to live if it weren't for the energy from dead animals/plants. (P1) Eating meat is bloody murder because animals died for it to happen.(P2) Animals died so that vegetables could exist.(C) Therefore, eating vegetables is bloody murder.So that's what I'd like to debate today, whether eating vegetables is bloody murder. I hope for a good debate.I thank you. Pictured above: Malicious mother brainwashing sexy spouse to commit murder.