BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Claim: the South is to blame for glorifying the KKK

It doesn't have to be the KKK. And btw, the biggest Klan membership in KKK history was not in the South, but in Indiana. Look up DC Stephenson. Probably the most well known Klan invasion of the USA was in Indiana. Malcolm X's father was killed not in the South, but in Michigan. A famous murder. The Black Legion were a violent arm of the Klan that killed Malcolm X's father. But it doesn't have to be the KKK. Northerners had their own way to oppress black people. The only state that might be innocent of atrocities is New York, but the rest of the North is guilty of this as well.
should homework be banned

Firstly and most obviously, school work is just as easily done in the classroom. One need not complete additional work outside the classroom in order to prove that they are capable of doing so. Secondly, learning takes place both in and outside of an academic environment. Learning includes a wide array of crucial skills that are not obtained through the completion of academic assignments that are arguably more important to securing and maintaining a job. Some of these include social skills, uncovering hidden talents through extracurricular activities and simply learning life experience in general.
Morality is NOT subjective

I accept. Taoism also had nothing to do with me coming to my conclusion. Morality - Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. My argument that morality is subjective is to say that these principles differ from person to person and that there is no morality which is set in stone. Since you challenged me, I think it appropriate that you made the first statement. If I make a claim, I have to back it up. If you make a claim, you have to back it up.
Morality is NOT subjective

"Regardless, the gay people are NOT being treated unequally, we just won't let them do certain things" That is treating them unequally. Even if they were immoral, it would still be unequal treatment. Unequal means not the same. #maths "because they are immoral," Millions of people disagree with you, which proves subjective morality. If morality was objective, we'd all be agreeing with each other. But we're not, we're disagreeing. We have different views on morality, hence morality is subjective. So that's it folks, he shows how he is homophobic and he strangely enough proves me right.
Morality is NOT subjective

Yeah I don't care how Russia acts. Regardless, the gay people are NOT being treated unequally, we just won't let them do certain things because they are immoral, that's not inequality. Anyway, I never said you followed the Satanic Bible, but you DID say that you agree with the particular quote from the Satanic bible, "do what you want but hurt no one," so I refuted this lie.
Morality is NOT subjective

"Irrelevant, they think it is OK, in reality it is not" If they think it is okay, then there is no objective morality, since if there was objective morality, they'd recognise it was wrong. But they don't. "1). The right to life. 2). The right to Liberty. 3). The right to Property. 4). The right to Privacy. 5). The right to Free Speech. 6). The right to dignity. 7). The right to Trial. 8). The right to vote. 9). The right to security and defense of these rights. 10). The right to equality." Russia doesn't give equality to LGBT people (neither do you apparently), but they don't think they're doing anything wrong. If these "universal laws" were truly universal and based off objective morality, they'd realise that making LGBT people live in inequality was wrong. But they don't. "And this is exactly how the Satanic bible is, their version of morality is true enough to get you to buy it, but false enough to cause massive moral deprivation." HA! Called it! You do realise that I never claimed to completely follow the Satanic bible right? You've just assumed this. Nice going man.
Morality is NOT subjective

Irrelevant, they think it is OK, in reality it is not, what makes something wrong you may ask? First and foremost it violates a right, these rights are universal and self evident, John Locke summed them up as "Life, Liberty, and Property," I decided to expound on these and list 10 fundamental rights: 1). The right to life. 2). The right to Liberty. 3). The right to Property. 4). The right to Privacy. 5). The right to Free Speech. 6). The right to dignity. 7). The right to Trial. 8). The right to vote. 9). The right to security and defense of these rights. 10). The right to equality. What makes something wrong is violating these rights, so how is this different from the satanic bibles version "do what you want but hurt no one?" Not much, but this is the danger of it; "If you get a cup of coffee that is 95% coffee and 5% arsenic, it's still going to kill you, and this is the most dangerous kind of lie, the ones that have enough truth in it to make you think it is plausible, but enough lie to mislead you," And this is exactly how the Satanic bible is, their version of morality is true enough to get you to buy it, but false enough to cause massive moral deprivation. Causing you to justify prostitution, if you were to go by the Satanic bible, you would say it is OK because it is not harming anyone, but if you went by universal rights, even assuming G-d doesn't exist, which he does, you would say that prostitution is immoral because it violates the 6th universal right; the right to dignity.
Morality is NOT subjective

"1). Don't kill. 2). Don't steal. 3). Don't lie. 4). Don't take drugs. 5). Don't commit sexual immorality." 1. We have people in this world who kill people and don't think it is wrong. 2. We have people in this world who steal and don't think it is wrong. 3. We have loads of people who lie in this world and don't think it is wrong. 4. We have people in this world who take drugs and don't think it is wrong. 5. By sexual immorality I am just going to presume you mean rape. There are people who do this and don't think it is wrong. Since we have people in this world who do all these things without thinking it is wrong, this point is easily refuted. A good example for people who do these things would be ISIS, who kill, steal, lie, rape and still believe they're moral.
Morality is NOT subjective

"Objective morality is self evident? Then you must be able to prove it easily. Yet you did not. If you wish to carry on debating logically, I suggest you provide evidence for your claims." Alright, alright, but you believe in universal rights correct? "My evidence for subjective morality is my opinion on prostitution and yours. On your profile, you say it isn't okay. On mine however, I say it is okay. This shows how our moralities differ. If morality were objective, it would be clear to us which one of us would be right and which would be wrong. Since the latter doesn't want to be in the wrong, they'd conform to whoever is right. However, this is not so, we both see our own judgements as moral, but think of the others as immoral." Morality can be simplified by the 7 Noahide laws, which are as follows if I remember correctly: 1). Don't deny G-d. 2). Don't worship idols. 3). Don't murder. 4). Don't steal. 5). Don't abuse animals. 6). Respect the holiness of marriage 7). Establish justice. The 5 precepts define morality as this: 1). Don't kill. 2). Don't steal. 3). Don't lie. 4). Don't take drugs. 5). Don't commit sexual immorality. See? Universal morality.
Morality is NOT subjective

Objective morality is self evident? Then you must be able to prove it easily. Yet you did not. If you wish to carry on debating logically, I suggest you provide evidence for your claims. My evidence for subjective morality is my opinion on prostitution and yours. On your profile, you say it isn't okay. On mine however, I say it is okay. This shows how our moralities differ. If morality were objective, it would be clear to us which one of us would be right and which would be wrong. Since the latter doesn't want to be in the wrong, they'd conform to whoever is right. However, this is not so, we both see our own judgements as moral, but think of the others as immoral.
Assault weapons should regular citizens be able to own them

"When the weapons menacing looks coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons, anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun and can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." -VPC. The "assault" term adopted by manufactures and left media alike has for the past while caused much controversy amongst society. In further rounds I will explain why these weapons are justified
Interstellar Travel Research Should be a Priority

First off, let me say that I am Pro space exploration so my stance might seem weird. But I take this stance because we need to focus on things other than interstellar travel. 1) Colonization of other planets Even if we achieve interstellar travel, I highly doubt that we will be able to colonize other star systems. For the time being, we must focus on building up a backup home somewhere other than Earth. So that if Earth were to face something like a mass extinction event (like a huge asteroid crashing into earth), we may have to evacuate our dear home planet. Therefore colonization of other planets and terraforming them i.e. making them suitable to sustain Earth life should be a far bigger priority than simply going to another star system. 2) Problems on Earth We have more than enough problems on this planet already, with all the disease, poverty, climate change and whatnot.
Troll debate: The Treaty of Versailles was Unfair for Germany

Full Resolution: The Treaty of Versailles was Unfair for GermanyTHIS IS A TROLL DEBATE. IF YOU ACCEPT THE DEBATE, THAT MEANS THAT YOU KNOW IT IS A TROLL DEBATE, AND THIS DEBATE WILL BE A TIED DEBATE, A NULL VOTING DEBATE. There can be feedback, as long as you make your vote tied.Structure1. Acceptance2. Arguments3. Arguments in French4. Write arguments like this (hElLo i aM fIrE_wInGs.)5. Some more trolly arguments Let's start!!!
Medea is responsible for her actions

Premises: 1.Anger is defined as a strong feeling of displeasure, hostility, and revenge. 2.Medea"s husband is to blame for her anger. 3.Medea wants her husband to feel the same pain she feels. 4.This act is a form of punishment on her enemies 5.Medea does not want to be seen as a coward. 6.She does not want her children to become victims of insults and torture. 7.If her husband had not abandoned her than she would not have to seek revenge on him. 8.Therefore, Medea is not responsible for her actions. Non-controversial: Premise 1 Premise 2; If it was not for Medea"s husband leaving her, she would not be angry. Controversial: Premise 5, 7, 3
Medea is responsible for her actions

Premises: 1.Anger is defined as a strong feeling of displeasure, hostility, and revenge. 2.Medea does not want her children to live happy lives while she suffers. 3.She knows what she is planning to do is wrong. 4.No one is forcing her to kill her children; she is doing it on her own free will. 5.The only reason she wants to kill them is to bring pain to her husband who abandoned her. 6.She is selfish and only thinking about herself and her anger towards her husband; not her children. 7.Therefore, Medea is responsible for her actions. Non-controversial: Premise 1 because we agreed on this definition Premise 3, it is clear that Medea knows this is wrong or else she would not be having this inner conflict. Premise 5 Medea has no other reason to commit infanticide that to cause pain to her husband.
Medea is responsible for her actions

1.Anger is defined as a strong feeling of displeasure, hostility, and revenge. 2.Medea"s husband is to blame for her anger, but she should not take it out on her children. 3.Medea wants her husband to feel the same pain she feels. 4.This act is a form of punishment on her enemies 5.Medea does not want to be seen as a coward, but killing her children over a man could be considered weak . 6.She does not want her children to become victims of insults and torture. 7.If her husband had not abandoned her than she would not have to seek revenge on him. 8.Therefore, Medea is partly responsible for her actions.
Medea is responsible for her actions

1.Anger is defined as a strong feeling of displeasure, hostility, and revenge. 2.Medea does not want her children to live happy lives while she suffers. 3.She knows what she is planning to do is wrong. 4.No one is forcing her to kill her children; she is doing it on her own free will. 5.The only reason she wants to kill them is to bring pain to her husband who abandoned her. 6.She is selfish and only thinking about herself and her anger towards her husband; not her children. 7.Therefore, Medea is responsible for her actions.
Medea is responsible for her actions

2. I agree that even though she is agree with her husband it is not right to take it out on the children. 3. Her children are the only way for her to hurt him, if she were to kill herself he probably wouldn"t care. 5. I would agree that killing her children over a man is cowardly. She could just kill him instead 6. I also agree that there is no evidence of her children becoming victims, so therefore it is an excuse.
Medea is responsible for her actions

1.We agreed upon this definition 2. Medea feels that her children will grow old and abandoned her so killing them would cause he less suffering 3. She is aware that what she plans to do is wrong. 4. You can say that her husband has driven her to the point of insanity, which is forcing her to contemplate killing her children. 5. That is her only reason for doing this. 6. I can agree that she is being selfish
Medea is responsible for her actions

1.We agreed on this definition. 2.Medea"s husband is to blame for her anger, however she should not take that out on her children. 3.Medea should not use her children as a sacrifice to satisfy her own selfish need of revenge. 4.This is a form of punishment on her enemies. 5.Killing her children to punish a man is very cowardly. 6.Medea is saying her children are going to become victims as an excuse. There is no evidence to show that any shame or torture would be brought to her children.
Thats not allowed in America

Rebuttals1. sotheseedsofliberty2My opponent uses a different name in his arguments, because he wanted to? He even quotes a passage from Romeo and Juliet about a name. This is just a little strange if you ask me. 2. There is no tradition outlawed by the U. S. I say there is no tradition (that isn't illegal or is a inconvenience) that is outlawed in america. My opponent responds by posting the political ideologies of judges and law students. My opponent posts the political ideologies of these judges, yet doesn't show how any rights are being taken away in America. My Opponent posts the following,"Chief Justice Willim Rehnquist has written that the Court bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life"While it is bad that judges can be hostile to religious things, my opponent still shows no evidence of them taking away rights. Not once does he show how a Judge took away a religious persons rights. My Opponent simply doesn't talk about his argument in any of this. This argument holds no water.3. Religion ProblemsMy Opponent posts the following,"Why aren't the traditions, Religious as well as Patriotic displays of America and its citizens a regular part of daily lives as they once were. "Once again, my opponent doesn't argue his subject. His argument is that religious and patriotic displays aren't as common as they were before. However, the government still allows people to preform such acts. My opponent should be arguing how the government doesn't allow these acts, and therefore not arguing his statement. This argument holds no water.4. Tradition ProblemsMy Opponent posts the following,"Why aren't the traditions of America and its citizens a regular part of their daily lives as they once were. "Once again this isn't your topic. Your topic is about rights that the government doesn't allow. Instead you post about traditions we don't follow anymore. Forcing people to do these traditions would be a violation of rights. The government doesn't make us do these, showing us we have rights. This argument holds no water. Conclusion:My opponent doesn't argue about his topic at all during any of the rounds. He simply argues about things we have ceased to do in America regularly, however the government still allows it, therefore meaning they haven't banned it. Your arguments were supposed to be about traditions the U. S. Gov. bans, however you haven't proved one point. ArgumentsI won't be making any new arguments, due to this being the last round. My Opponent has not addressed, refuted, or acknowledged any of my arguments, so all of them still stand. Final Conclusion:My Opponent doesn't argue about his topic during any of the rounds, and he hasn't addressed, refuted, or acknowledged any of my arguments. I am done with this round, and I am signing off.
Thats not allowed in America

Hi, I'll debate this with you. I would normally think first round is acceptance, however you posted an argument so I will to. My Claim is Americans have the right to have any sort of practice or expression in the country, as long as it does not Break any Laws (Such as injuring/killing someone), and as long as it does not cause major inconvenience to anybody else. First off my opponent claims the following, "Has America been slowly over time been turned into a country where the citizens have lost the right to celebrate their traditions, recognition of and the public display of religious expression and patriotic expressions of pride in the country?" I would answer no to this question. Citizens of the U.S have the right to "celebrate their traditions, recognition of and the public display of religious expression and patriotic expressions of pride in the country" (as my opponent puts it). We have all of these rights and many more. My opponent also claims, "the traditions of the countries people is no longer practiced in public and relegated to the secret observance in the private Sanctuaries of the home." As I said above, as long as it doesn't effect people greatly or break any laws it isn't illegal. We still have the right to do those things in public. However, the problem is people want to do it in the privacy of their own homes. Not many people show their culture outside of their home unless it is a holiday relating to them. You also argue, "I argue that the country is in a state of rapid dissolution and the causes are many but the main cause for the divide in America's people is that they aren't united together through common traditions that originally bonded them as one people, one nation." This statement is entirely wrong. You say we were united though common values that bonded us as one, however what are those common values? America is known as the "Great Melting Pot", Why? Because people from all over the world, with different traditions, ethnicities, values and morals come here. America is a country of Immigrants, and that is what it America was formed on. You also claim America is in a rapid state of dissolution. How?, currently we are one of the most stable countries on earth. The first amendment of the Bill of Rights claims the following, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petitition the Government for a redress of grievances." (source in references) This is mostly of what my opponent claims has been taken from citizens. However, the U.S has it in written law, and due to that it must be and is carried out throughout the U.S as law. This is all I have to say right now. I wish luck to my opponent, and sign off. Vote Con! References 1. https://www.aclu.org...
Thats not allowed in America

"That's not Allowed in America." Has America been slowly over time been turned into a country where the citizens have lost the right to celebrate their traditions, recognition of and the public display of religious expression and patriotic expressions of pride in the country? I believe that its quite evident that this is a undeniable fact in this country today. This freedom of public expression of original traditions of the citizens has slowly been suppress through the countries courts and through its public educational institutions. Can a country long survive when the glue that bonds a countries people together, the traditions of the countries people is no longer practiced in public and relegated to secret observance in the private Sanctuary of the home. I argue that the country is in a state of rapid dissolution and the causes are many but the main cause for the divide in America's people is that they aren't united together through common traditions that originally bonded them as one people, one nation. Can a country long survive when the glue that bonds a countries people together, the traditions of the countries people is no longer practiced in public and relegated to the secret observance in the private Sanctuaries of the home. I argue that the country is in a state of rapid dissolution and the causes are many but the main cause for the divide in America's people is that they aren't united together through common traditions that originally bonded them as one people, one nation. Freedom to openly practice the traditions of the countries people,"That's not Allowed in America," anymore.
Intermediate's Debate Competition R1: US Gov should implement solar road highways within the US

This debate is a part of the Intermediate Debate Tournament, R1, instituted by TUF. As Pro, I will be arguing the following position: Resolved: The United States federal government should implement solar road highways within the United States boarders. Debate Structure: R1: Acceptance R2: Opening Contentions R3: Rebuttals and Rebuilding Contentions R4: Rebuttals, Rebuilding Contentions, and Closing Statements In addition, if Con is not satisfied with the structure of the debate, he may make suggestions to alter the arrangement in the first round. I look forward to a thoughtful, respectful debate. Good luck!
Resolved: That Star Wars is Better than Star Trek

For my opening arguments in Round 2 I will be comparing the movie sales of the franchises.In Round 3 I shall compare the universes of the franchises.In Round 4 I shall compare the legacies of the franchises.Star Wars has had 7 movies released so far, with an additional trilogy coming in the following years. In total these movies have grossed $4,485,672,683 (1), with an average of $640,810,383 being made per movie worldwide. Star Trek has had twelve films released. These films have grossed $1,930,671,933 (2), with an average of $160,889,328 being made per movie worldwide. This is roughly one half of what the Star Wars films made. With additonal films coming in the future from Disney, this profit gap will only increase.In addition, the total budgets for the Star Trek Films were $270 million more than that of the $420 million total budgets for the Star Wars saga.These statistics prove that Star Wars is ultimately more popular worldwide in theaters. Popularity does not always equal greatness, but in the case of these franchises, it does. I will explain this more in Round 4. SOURCES:(1) http://www.the-numbers.com...(2)http://wiki.answers.com...;http://www.the-numbers.com...;