BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The American Revolution was justified

in the 13 colonies that rebelled the numbers are closer to about a third of the white population (though historic polls of African Americans would make it about double that) by the slight majority I meant the British American white colonists alltogehter, that is to include Acadia in Quebec. However one of your most faulty assertions is that the British really weren't that beloved by African-Americans. That is pretty much false. It is true that the Jamaicans and West Indian sugar-colonies tended to treat Africans with less repsect than their Norhtren neigbours, but such impressions were not shared in Britain proper. Already by this time Bill Wilberforce and Tom Clarkson were spear-heading a large scale aboltion (at least of the slave trade) movement, which helped incline many traditionally conservative planters and their allies to need to push their own agenda in Parliment. Had the colonies given representation in London no doubt they would have delayed human rights reformations such as this for many more years to come. Also when the revolution started heating up, London declared any slave that could make it to British controlled soil would be free. This naturally made the Negores (which made up a ocnsiderble portion of the population) very supportive and is a policy very similar to Lincoln's declaration that all rebel slaves were free (Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri were orginally allowed to keep there's) and yet historically yankee people love Lincoln, but despise Lord North. If you think the Americans had the right to declare their independance and resisit violently, why wouldn't you think the same about the Confederates? i will expand on this later. There also many benefits of having British rule. When Americans declared their independance they sought to launch invasions into the Ohio valley (euphensim used: settlers), thus leading to contiuous wars and human right violations. To ensure peace was kept in that part of the world, it was London's policy to frobid colonism of the Ohio Vlaley. as history tells us, it was a good idea. As for your allegations of unfair taxes, that is riduclous. All British colonies were taxed, and the ones suffered by the Yanks were not particualry heinous. David McCullough as well as many other historians agrees that their compalints were ridiculous. Americans had the highest living quality. All through, one must also remember that war should only be entered extreme circumstances, a few extra taxes that everyone else in the Mepire pays doesn't justify violence against the social order.
The American Revolution was justified

In America the 4th of July is a huge holiday, celebrating the declaration of independance for 13 of the 16 British colonies on the North American continent. The founding fathers are praised for their controbutions to democracy, patriotism, and heroics during the American revolution that started in 1775 AD. But were them and their really all that great? Although I am no pacifist one must realize that engaging in a violent conflict without good reason is not often the wisest choice. The rebels say they were fighting for freedom, economic liberty and democracy, but were they really? Even if one does not consider blacks people, the majority of citiznes in colonial america (though slight) were actually loyalists and supported maintaining ties to Britain. If you are not an evil racist however, and consider Native Americans and Negroes people with the right to put int their two cents than the vast majority of Americans would not be in support in the revolution (generally the British abolition/black rights movement was far stronger than its American counterpart and the Natives were terrified the colonists would press further across the Appalaichians, which London had for the moment forbidden). Lots of history books complain about the taxes colonists were forced to endure, though they weren't really bad and the living standard in colonial america was far higher than old England's. The really just wanted representation, but didn't need to resort to such radical methods.
The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity: The illusion of love

I"m offended by unintelligent uneducated people. You were a prime example in your first RD of simply not being able to READ which is a typical miss-steak of nearly 100% of the so-called christians here on DDO who have presented their colors in flying uterus detail before spawning their rectal thermometers at the teleprompters. And I either insult them in which they rightly deserve, Or I walk away, In which they rightly deserve. Either way, I don"t put up with it, Not for any reason, Not ever. Oh and oh yeah, Both are widely taught in college to do right. Well um gee, Um no I don"t claim ALL of the article as being correct. You don"t know which parts. And you shouldn"t go around collecting your heebee jujubes bubblegum parade thinking that I"m going to agree with everything that the article stated because I didn"t write it. Ah yes, There"s nobody that agrees with all of the bible. If they say so, They are liars. Because they cannot practice what it preaches. That"s a prime example of textbook inability incapability in being unable to agree with ---everything--- that one dreams, Thinks and feels if spattered down in an article like that unless its the author. . Now we can move on to the sheltered youth that you must have been and mommy didn"t scratch behind your ears too often with a diggie, Oh sorry, Doggie pale now did she rat poison boy? "I win by default because I have no opponent. " Your opponent was the article, NOT ME in which I made perfectly clear in the previous RD. But since you clearly cannot understand that, As the first grade insult goes "Your are denser than a black hole. " Oh so very true. Then you commit your homogenized self gloriously "Matt Dillahunty didn't join this debate as the Pro position. Richard Dawkins didn't join this debate as the Pro position. " Wowzers with the measles vaccine unavailable unto you, You really don"t know how to debate all that well now do you? Nope. Strange isn"t it that bible verses are quoted all the time in people"s debates, But not someone else"s quotes in debates with the genie-us e-u. ? Or how bout Donald Toilet Dust Trump, The worst president of all time, He"s quoted all the time. But that must be wrong around the striped zebra also in your re-chord book also. Correct neon strangler fig noodle boy? But strange, You have a gibberish sandwich time of a yodeling Buddhist monk silly pity of a time when someone uses quotes, For whatever reason, Oh you mean like to support his positioning on what he"s trying to say? Nah that"s far to much for your cabbage batbrain to absorb. Since it is along with the Chevy Chase routine of falling down too much on his golden a$$ and not being stable to recognize to debate the article and not me, Especially when I deliberately stated that the article was "taken from" right in front of your fricken face and then gave a link to the article, And you STILL could not follow it, But had to refer to "me" in me being Pro, This debate is now over. We"re done. I don"t debate with those that are uneducated or unintelligent.
World Domination

Becoming president is very hard. Should you succeed at that, you only have four years to execute the whole plan of yours. Terms of office are made so presidents don't abuse their power to do exactly what you describe.Then, allying yourself to other countries takes another great deal of time, effort and money. A thing which the US certainly doesn't have an unlimited amount of. And don't forget that other developed countries are democratic. Hitler showed us the dangers of absolute power.This use of propaganda might work at some people but never enough to convince everyone to go to war. We're talking about tricking the US and Europe to blame everything on the other part of the world.Let's say you've surpassed all of those obstacles and are now the emperor of half the world. How is a free market economy going to benefit you? In order to achieve world domination you would have to deny the population of free thinking. You would have to insert some form of communism. And good luck with that.
World Domination

I would start off as a politician in the United States. I would attempt to go for the position of the president. Then I would earn the trust of the people in my political party members. Slowly I would introduce them to my idea after I know I can trust them. Then I would use the power I have earned to help other countries with their struggles and earning their trust so they would hopefully want to ally themselves with me. When I have allied myself with every country that I can I will use a propaganda technique that blames the non allied countries for the problems that everyone is experiencing. That way I will be able to attack them with the peoples support. I would start a rally with other countries and invade. If it works I will start to take over countries one by one. Some countries may surrender while other may fight back. After I have control of those countries I would build my own army and threaten if countries don't change their economy to a free market then I will change it.
World Domination

Please give more detail. How do you start off? As a politican? A king? Which country? How do you plan to ally yourself with other countries? How do you plan on moving friends into other governments? How do you expect to bypass the parliament and democracy in general? How do you plan on making sure your friends don't backstab you if they have enough power? How do you think you can do all of this and not alert other countries of your conquest (especially since ww2)? How do you plan on sieging countries succesfully?And finally, how are you planning on restoring the world when there's no free market?
World Domination

If I was going to accomplish this, I would first ally myself with with the leading countries of the world. Then I would launch a political campaign. I would listen to what the people want. Ex: New jobs, better economy, etc. So then I wouldn't promise anything, unlike other political leaders. Then if all went well, I would win the hearts of the people. Then I would slowly move "friends" into the ruling countries government. Then I would have control of that government. So I would slowly repeat this cycle several times. then I would have others who follow me do the same in other countries. Then when I have control of the countries that were very co-operational, I would move for the others. I would move to more". extreme measures. No, very persuasive measures. Then if they don't cooperate with that then I will forcefully take over. Then when that's over I will start to reform the economies and start to address the major issues in the united world.
World Domination

So i wish to know how you think of World Domination. I have thought about all of the negative effects of one man in power. But what about this: A leadership ruled by one leader who is elected without secret scams, secret police, threats, and with the honest, unthreatened opinions. That leader serves for life and cannot just start killing the people for enjoyment. No more wars, conflicts resolved in debates instead of violence, and everyone working together for a better human race.The peoples views, beliefs, and ideas are their own and uninfluenced. Then when that ruler dies a new leader is elected and the cycle repeats. The human race would be better if we worked together without violence, starvation, secrets, lies, and scams.
When in conflict, an individual's FoS ought to be valued above a community's moral standards.

Con agreed that this is debated like a Lincoln-Douglas Debate round. No outside sources are allowed, as it focuses only on ideas and philosophy and not facts. Also, in Lincoln Douglas Debate, in order for the Con to win he must prove the majority of circumstances contradict the resolution, not just one as he would like to make you believe. His Arguments: 1. FoS is not an objective value: Agreed. .. hence my value was Liberty, because it is a very important Human Right that FoS helps protect. 2. FoS is itself a communal moral standard. This argument has no weight. Every single value is some community's moral standard. We aren't debating which concept includes the other, we are debating which one is more important. For instance, Human Rights includes Liberty, however sometimes Liberty must be valued above the other Human Rights. 3. Agreed. .. however this does not warrant the Community's moral standards limiting it. When we allow the subjective whims of communities to restrict free speech, we actually end up with too little liberty. Once again, my value of Liberty is the standard by which we can restrict free speech. If FoS harms other people's liberty (alien and sedition acts) than we should restrict it. This is using 1 community's moral standard, not the term as a whole. 4. See above argument. So Con, completely dropped my value. .. which, in LD theory, means he agreed to it, since omission is admission. That being said, he has already agreed that Liberty is a better value than Community Moral Standards. Unfortunately it seems as if Con doesn't understand how LD debate works, and thus accepted a challenge that he is debating wrong. Because he dropped my value and presented none of his own.
transgender is not a gender/sex, Only 2 genders

I do want to clarify the definition of sexual dimorphism, So there is no misunderstanding sexual dimorphism, The differences in appearance between males and females of the same species, Such as in colour, Shape, Size, And structure, That are caused by the inheritance of one or the other sexual pattern in the genetic material. I am wide aware there are few exceptions to this rule. Because it does happen where people are born with a mix of traits in a person. Although, The person's gender is normally distinct clear of that person. There is also a big thing about the genetics of a person. Men have X chromosomes, Women have Y that is a biological fact that is also a big reason why I believe trans isnt a gender/sex genetic makeup! Also you pretty much said my position on authority is flawed. I actually base most of my argument on my position on authority, God authority. There is plenty of proof that God is real, And he created the basics of the world, He created gender and he made man
transgender is not a gender/sex, Only 2 genders

I will argue against the your points considering that you did not prove my augment false, Because I only focused on the different combinations of gentile. You can have male, Female, Male and female, Or none as gentile. Objections to notion of attributes and traits associate with gender is that if you mean that there are psychical and psychological traits known as sexual dimorphism, Then yes there are difference between sexes. However the masculine and feminine traits, That I assume you are trying to assert are the typical traits that the culture told you, Women are suppose to do girly things and man do manly things, Are not an example of sexual dimorphism. Furthermore, Sexual dimorphism does not hold true in every case, Such as with the brain or even physical features. So, Your conclusion is false supported by contradicting assertions. Your next argument only argues an appeal to an authority, Which is makes the argument false by having this fallacy.
transgender is not a gender/sex, Only 2 genders

First, Before I start my argument I need to define certain words. Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender. Gender identity can correlate with assigned sex at birth, Or can differ from it. Sexual orientation is a person's sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, Homosexual, Or bisexual. Genital is a sexual organ. I will now present my argument. Argument From Genitals to multiple gender identities. P1. A society states that a gender comes from a person's genitalia. P2. There are two different genitalia. P3. So, There must be at least two genders. P4. However, A person can have one genitalia, No genitalia, Or both genitalia. P5. So, There are at least four genders. P6. However, A person can change their genitalia to another. P6. So, There are at least eight genders. P7. If P3, P4, Or P3 and P4 are ture, Then there must be more than two genders. C. There more than two genders.
The UNC basketball program is better than Duke's

The men's basketball program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has historically been better than the men's basketball program at Duke University. We are only debating the men's basketball programs at the two universities, and not any other aspects of the two universities. The Burden of Proof is shared, Con must prove Duke's superiority in basketball. This is my first debate, and I hope it will be a good one. Wikipedia counts as a reliable source for this debate. We will start debating round 2.
Anarchy doesn't work.

My opponent has brought three reasons which he claims make anarchy(AnCap) unable to work in the real world. I will summarize them in a short manner and then refute them below.1.) In order for AnCap to work, the entire world would need to be anarchists.In this argument, my opponent claims that other countries would probably just claim the "free land". This argument runs into a difficulty though. It assumes that the only way for people to defend themselves is by having a government to facilitate it. What evidence does he bring to support this claim? AnCap's solve this problem with the concept of private defense agencies. With a private defense agency, a person or a group of people form a voluntary contract with said defense agency and pay the defense agency to defend them from intrusions on their person or property. The defense agency has an incentive to form steady and long lasting relationships with it's clients in order to keep those clients and so as to keep a good reputation with other would-be customers.2) Crime and theft would increase, and drug use would skyrocket.Same point as the first one I made. Police need not be paid by the government. It is also not too far fetched the idea that some landlords would offer tenants protection of their property in a contractual lease, much like providing water or electricity. And as to the claim that drug use would increase in an anarchist society, that is actually probably true. Though my opponent does not show why it is a bad thing. Unless by drug use, he means forcing others to inject heroin into their bodies, people smoking bud, taking acid, smoking crack or any other drug is not the business of another person.3) People would't do their job.How does my opponent conclude this? He does know that the system of anarhcy I am defending is specifically anarcho-capitalism right? This is a society where goods and services are provided completely by the free market. This means that people with resources provide things that others want for services(ex. labor, currency). AnCap is different from other more popular forms of anarchism in that it does not seek to abolish the free market.I await my opponent's response.
Anarchy doesn't work.

ï¿½I will now continue my claim that anarchy would not work. ï¿½Reasoning: 1) In order for Anarchy to work, the entire world would have to be Anarchists. Let's say if the United States was an Anarchy, other world powers would think of it as free land. Afterall, we wouldn't have a military. .. at least not an organized or an effective one. If the entire world was an Anarchy, then I will proceed to my next argument. 2) Crime and theft would increase, and drug use would skyrocket. Our communities would no longer be safe without police. Since their would be no government, there would be nobody to keep them in line. ï¿½ 3) People would't do their job. If you're not getting payed, then why should you keep designing buildings? Their would be no bankers, no engineers no nothing except for farmers farming for themselves. How would we obtain food? If the world was perfect, anarchy might possibly work, but the world isn't perfect. If there was no government, the world would be unorganized, and nobody would be kept in line. Conclusion (for round 1): Anarchy might possible work if the world was perfect, and the whole world would have to be anarchy Thank you. I await my opponents response. ï¿½
Anarchy doesn't work.

As to definitions of the terms of the resolution, the specific form of anarchy that I will be defending is Anarcho-Capitalism(here-on referred to as AnCap). It is best defined as:The political philosophy and theory that (A)the State is an unnecessary evil and should be abolished, and (B)a free-market private property economic system is morally permissible.[1]Working will be defined as "to function; operate"[2]As per rules, I will not bring an argument this round, but will allow my opponent to begin.[1] http://www.ozarkia.net...[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
It"s possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

3. I agree that in this debate we are strictly talking about human beings and it being possible for them to be able to romantically love more than one person. 4. I feel that you also prove your own argument invalid by saying that. There is nothing in the definition that says that it is impossible to be romantically involved with two or more people. The possibility of romantically loving more than one person simply comes down to each individual persons preference. 5. Having a romantic relationship with someone doesn't restrict that relationship from being one-sided. There is always the possibility that after a breakup between partners that one of them may still have romantic feelings for the other. Although a physical relationship maybe gone one can still have feeling of romantic love for an ex; even if they both have moved on to see other people. We defined romantic love as " having a strong passionate affection towards someone or something" in premise 3. No where in that definition does it say that the love has to be returned. 6. As stated in point 5 of this argument, a physical connection isn't needed in order for romantic feelings of love to be present in an individual. Your argument is subjective based on your viewpoint of a physical connection being needed in order to have romantic feelings. 7. A "true" sense of romantic love, in your opinion, is to have sexual relations with this person. However, we aren't debating the definition on what true romantic love is. We have already agreed to the definition, which I reflected back to previously in this round. 9. Once again, you're referring to your idea of "truly" loving a person. How would your definition of "true" love differ from the definition of romantic love that we have already agreed upon? 10. Wouldn't you agree that in most traditional marriages, to marry someone you would have to be romantically in love with them? Just because there are polygamists doesn't mean they can't harbor feelings of romantic love. 11. I would say that a better percent of marriages are had because of romantic love two people share, rather then one using another to cope with of a previous lover, for money reasons, etc. Also, if someone was to force themselves to marry in hopes of getting over a previous marriage, wouldn't they just be in denial of the romantic love they lost yet still have for their ex?