BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
John Edward is a psychic medium fraud

My opponent has been asking me for debates over and over again. I was stupid enough to give him a chance, hoping he could act like an adult.Of course he ignored the rule "First round is for acceptance only"So the debate is now over and he lost his privilege to debate me.Fool me once...This is another perfect example why I don't allow votes on debates.I'm sure stopping the debate here would have gotten him flooded with unfair votes. Voters here tend to reward cheaters who break the rules.I would say this was a very satisfying debate. I learned a lot from it:1. Wylted can't act like an adult and isn't worth my time.2. No-vote debates can give me the opportunity to test if somebody can really debate or just act foolish without risking a loss.Whatever Wylted says from now on will be ignored by me. I'm sorry I actually gave him a chance against my better judgement.
gay marriage should be legalized in the US

Thanks to Pro for posting the debate. Definitions: State: A government body either at the federal, state or local level There are many types of social relationships that two individuals might enter into. Some examples are: an acquaintance, friendship, enemies, girlfriend/boyfriend, courtship, engagement and marriage. In the examples provided, the state only regulates one type of relationship; that of marriage. All other relationships are left up to the individual. The question then arises as to why the state involves itself in this type relationship? Typically state involvement at any level is to insure some type of benefit to the citizenry. The state regulates traffic laws to keep citizens safe on the road. The state regulates contracts so that people are not unfairly treated. You get the picture. So what is so special about marriage? I propose that state involvement is due to the fact that in a traditional marriage (husband/wife) a natural product of that relationship is children. The state seeks to foster the best environment for the children. Several studies have shown that children raised in a home with both biological parents have a lower rate of behavioral problems (1). Children with less behavioral problems grow to be more productive citizens and a benefit to the state. The state is not concerned with the intent or ability of potential married couples to have children. Their only concern is that if a married couple happens to naturally produce children, the state wants to support children raised by biological parent. Since same-sex marriage will never result in children being raised by biological parents, same-sex marriage should not be legalized. Over to you Pro" References (1) http://marri.us...
gay marriage should be legalized in the US

One of the biggest issues for the US government is the issue of whether gay marriage should be legalized or not. I would say that the answer is simple, the US Constitution says (all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness)- www.archives.gov The rights for a man to love, be with, and be married to another man, or a woman to do the same with another woman with the same legal rights as a strait couple. Do to the computer sever I have I can"t watch any videos so please don"t use them as a source, nor can I get anything from Facebook, so I"m sorry if this is an inconvenience to my opponent. This is my fist debate on this sight.
We should bring back honorable duels.

Duels were fair fights on matters of honor or disputes. Bringing duels into modern day society would reduce violent crime. They settle disputes and do not necessarily have to end in death. Though there should still be that option. If we brought back legal duels, and let the combatants pick the rules of engagement, innocent people wouldn't get hurt, and there would be a reduction in violent crime due to it being a legal fight. It would actually bring honor back to fighting rather than having cowardly drive by shootings that kill innocent by standers.
Allowing Illegal Immigrations To Still Get Benefits

Debate OutlineThis is a debate about whether or not illegal immigrants should receive the same benefits legal immigrants and citizens would receive in a country. For example: insurance, employment, housing, Welfare, Social Security, foodstamps. Structure: The debate will consist of four rounds: Acceptance Thesis and Opening Argument Rebuttals and Arguments Rebuttals and Conclusions [no new arguments should be made] General rules: Throughout the debate, a set of rules are to abided by, by both contenders. Each time a rule is broken it shall be considered by all voting parties preceding the conclusion of the debate. Standard debate rules apply: no insulting, keep it appropriate, keep bias minimal. And with that said, I wish luck to the person that accepts this debate. Hopefully this will be more fun and insightful!
Allowing Illegal Immigrations To Still Get Benefits

Fair warning: I wrote this at 3am, so expect some incoherency. C1) Incoherent Pro's plan does not make any sense. How is it possible for the *government* to directly hand out benefits to *illegal* immigrants while they're still classified as illegally residing in the US? The government, as the upholder of the law, would be obligated to round up and deport every single illegal immigrant that showed up to its administrative offices to collect benefits. Pro's plan is impossible to implement, and thus it doesn't even warrant consideration. C2) Cost One exhaustive study by the Heritage foundation finds that if all illegal immigrants were to be given amnesty, it would cost the state an additional $106 billion dollars per year [1] due to the discrepancy between how much the now-legal immigrants will pay in taxes and how much money in benefits they eat up. However, the key difference between Pro's plan and amnesty is that under Pro's plan, immigrants remain illegal and thus do not have to pay any taxes; this means that the true cost of providing illegal immigrants with benefits is even higher than $106 billion, perhaps closer to $200 billion. Now further consider the fact that the very act of providing benefits to illegal immigrants attracts even *more* illegal immigrants in even *greater* numbers. America has better work conditions, higher wages, and greater job availability than almost every country in the Western Hemisphere; that itself is already plenty of motivation to try surmounting the obstacles blocking entry into the US. By going even further and paying the illegal immigrants federal benefits, the US would basically become a guaranteed ticket to financial security for the average lower-class Mexican worker. We can look to academic analyses of the effects of amnesty to see that generous immigration policies such as Pro's plan do, indeed, lead to substantial increases in illegal immigration [2]. The point of all this is that providing illegal immigrants benefits, all things taken together, could easily cost close to half a trillion dollars. Considering that the current amount of money spent on such benefits is about $900 billion [1], this is an *enormous* increase in government expenditures, which will inevitably translate to a higher tax burden on the American populace, more federal debt, and funds being diverted from important areas like education to make ends meet. The monetary costs of providing benefits to illegal immigrants would be hugely detrimental. C3) Unjust By giving illegal immigrants governmental benefits, the state is basically rewarding them for breaking the law, and at the considerable expense of all the state's legal residents. In other words, the policy Pro is advocating is completely and utterly unjust -- a travesty against the American population, whose well-being is supposed to be the government's *priority*. For that reason alone, we should reject the policy proposed in the resolution I'll leave it at that for now. The resolution is negated. Back to Pro. [1] . http://www.heritage.org... [2] . http://www.nationalreview.com...
The Earth is not 6000 years old

My opponent and I have had multiple debates on my blog about various topics.http://iamchristianiamanatheist.blogspot.kr...However that format is not well suited for debates, as such we want to continue these debates on this platform and let the voters decide.The first contention is whether the Earth is 6000 years old.I hold the position that the earth is not 600 years old, but more in the 4.5 billion years old range.(1)I hope my opponent finds this suitable to debate. Please let me know if this is acceptable and then we can get started.(1) http://www.scientificamerican.com...
The Bible does not fit in with modern day social standards

I believe that the bible does not correspond with the social standards of modern living. First of all, I do understand that you may say that the bible wasn't meant to correspond with society, but society is meant to correspond with the bible. To that I say that not all people are Christians in society, and even though the majority are (in Britain and America) if you factor out the number of Christians who don't follow the bible strictly and don't live by it, then the number of Christians left probably make up the minority in society. Secondly, it is clear that the bible is extremely sexist towards women, and there are excessive amounts of quotes I could bore you with, but I'll only use a couple: "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says" (1 Corinthians 14:34), "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord." (Ephesians 5:22), and finally; "woman is the glory of man." (1 Corinthians 11:7). All these quotes highlight the fact that times were very different when these books were written, and that there was tremendous gender inequality, however, times have changed, with both genders being treated more equally in everyday life, and men not seen as superior or having power over women, but they are both equal in their relationship (in most cases). Therefore the Bible does not encourage equality between genders, and sends out the completely wrong messages to Christians in modern society, and if it's doing anything, it's causing clashes and conflict. Lastly, homosexuality. It is clear that the bible is anti-gay by condemning homosexuals to death and calling their acts 'abominations': "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them." (Leviticus 20:13), "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22). I would say that society has, mainly, accepted homosexuality as a natural thing, as it happens all around us in the animal kingdom, it was the norm in Ancient Greek society, and many people are revealing their love for the same sex, and by the bible encouraging such hurtful things, conflicts are caused in modern society when most people have already accepted homosexuality. Overall, the bible does not send out the right message for this time and society by sentencing homosexuals to death, encouraging the abhorrent inequality of the genders and generally saying that different is bad in society. The bible is dragging society behind in its old-fashioned, unequal, imbalanced demeanour. People who follow these sexist homophobic 'laws' are attempting to claw their way back to times when human rights were not equal, and people were narrow minded and ignorant.
ARK: Survival Evolved- Is this game good? YES

News Flash: A game of the year, Skyrim, doesn't need optimization mods / settings that you need to download or edit! It's already a good looking game that is extremely fun to play! Wow! Not only Skyrim, the Fallout games are the best RPGs of all time, and guess what! YOU DON'T NEED OPTIMIZATION SETTINGS / MODS! News Flash: You don't need to take steps for Skyrim and Fallout, amazing.
Eating Cats and Dogs is Morally Acceptable

While it is true that humans are animals, we create a line between humans and other members of the Animal Kingdom by producing tools. This changes everything. We can get bored easily, we don't have to be alert for predators and we don't have a crisis to reproduce, in fact we already have overpopulation problems. We also build roads, create works of art, and ultimately become much more immersed in luxury. Because we have this distinction, we try to find meaning in it. Many people search for human shaped things in the world, faces and voices in images and sounds. It would be considered immoral for similar reasons as to why animal testing is oftentimes attacked for animal cruelty, as we are a species that can choose to be picky about what we eat. When you even consider in practical terms, cats are not a farmable species. They are small, territorial, and will try to escape from any pen you put them in. Combined with the emotions they can display which relate to humans who have already separated ourselves from other animals (little species outside our own follow legal systems), you would have to need to eat cat meat since there was no alternative. It is true that we already breed fish, but the fish we keep as pets are not appropriate for food, mainly due to size. In conclusion, we as a species have made ourselves not so much superior, but distinct from other species. We try to make other species more human like, anthromorphising them with emotions familiar to us. If we view humans in more aspects than just the physical, then we should judge other animals in that regard too. A tie in question would be if you could create an AI that felt emotions, would torturing it be immoral? It's not human... I would like to than my opponent for an entertaining debate and hope to discuss further matters with them in the future. Yours sincerely, Duncan.
Eating Cats and Dogs is Morally Acceptable

One of the keys to understanding this debate is to understand that dogs and cats, regardless of what emotion they may show, are not human. Humans are the only species that can ever be human. All natural carnivores and omnivores (as humans are) do not choose what animals to eat based on factors such as what emotion an animal displays. If you are ever attacked by a deadly animal, try showing it genuine fear to get it to not eat you. It would not work, and you would be dead. The natural way is to eat what will provide the necessary nutrition to survive. In cases where there are ample food sources, similar to the situation in which many humans live, then it is only natural to choose what to eat based on taste. The idea of animals displaying human emotions is highly subjective and open to too much human interpretation.I accept that many people have a special bond with dogs and cats. However, I want to reiterate that people could still have this bond. No one would go to someone else's house and eat their pet. In fact, certain dogs and cats would be breeded for human consumption, while others would be breeded for domestication. Also, the fact that some people have an affinity for dogs and cats should not matter, as there are people who have special relationships with any variety of animals. People care for fish tanks, but also eat fish. Some people even grow to be attached to chickens, cows, or pigs, three of our primary sources of meat. In short, the fact that people like some animals, such as dogs and cats, should not mean that it is morally unacceptable to eat those animals.It is morally acceptable to eat dogs and cats.
Eating Cats and Dogs is Morally Acceptable

Cats and Dogs have a unique place in human society. For generations, humans have kept them as pets, even worshipped them or used them as guard dogs. The bond we hold with them has even caused us to give them human qualities. Giving non human things human qualities is call anthromorphic personification. When we apply human features like loyalty and love to animals, eating them can be seen as akin to cannibalism, as dogs and cats are known to display emotion. Cannibalism has always been seen as a barbaric action, and only to be used when necessary. The same should then apply to dogs and cats. Notice how we apply different aspects to different animals, cows as calm, pigs as gluttonous. We see dogs and cats as the closest to us because they portray emotion most clearly. If it was truly necessary, cannibalism of this kind could be accepted, but dogs and cats wouldn't provide you much meat, and dogs like huskies are even known to have high vitamin A count making organs like their liver toxic. You could ignore that and say that cannibalism of this sort is necessary, but each culture chooses its own sacred animals, we choose the most emotive in the west, cows are sacred to Hinduism, pigs, while not worshiped, are not to be eaten in Islamic counties. Vegetarians hold an attachment to all life in this way and cannot choose to detach themselves from animals like cows and approve their slaughter. I am not one myself, but I would only approve of humane culling of animals, not slaughterhouses. But if you go by "it's another culture" as your argument, Islam has a culture in extreme tendencies to mistreat women. The Golden Rule is the one of the few moral points we agree upon, and if we give animals human qualities, character, per say, they would cease to be animals, and extension of humanity representing our virtues, loyalty and innocence. I'll see you next round. Duncan.
Eating Cats and Dogs is Morally Acceptable

I first want to mention that all cultures have eaten animal meat throughout human history. Name me one culture that lived on a truly vegetarian diet. Given that different cultures and cuisines that evolved completely separately all include meat as a staple of the diet, it is a reasonable conclusion that humans should eat meat. After all, there are many other carnivorous and omnivorous animals. The argument that we should not eat animals because they were once alive also holds no water, as plants were also alive at one point. If we accept that it is acceptable to eat meat, then this debate becomes about whether it is moral to eat some meats, but not others. Many people believe that it is not acceptable to eat dogs and cats as they are viewed as pets. Many animals have been domesticated throughout the world. Is it all of a sudden immoral to eat a chicken, cow, or pig because someone believes it to be special or sacred? If we allowed some people's feelings on every animal to dictate our diets, we would not eat beef (due to Hindus) or pork (due to Jews). Also, dog and cat meat is traditional in some cultures. Should it suddenly become unacceptable for these people to eat as they have for centuries? There is no reason why it is not acceptable to eat cats and dogs, while it is acceptable to eat cows, pigs, and chickens. Finally, it is important to note that I am not arguing that it should be legal to go over to someone's house and shoot their pet. Dogs and cats would be breaded separately, meaning that ones breaded for food would be separate from those breaded for domestication. There would be no problems for the pet market, as different breeds would tend to be used for meat compared to for pets.
Replace Welfare with the Negative Income Tax

After a long hiatus from this site, I'm back with a proposal that I would love to debate. Proposal: The United States federal government should replace its current welfare system, which includes 126 different means-tested programs, with a negative income tax system. Debate Structure:Round 1 will be acceptance by the opponent. Round 2 will be my full proposal introduction and arguments, and my opponent's rebuttal.Round 3 will be rebuttals from both sides.Round 4 will be final rebuttals and conclusions. Eligibility Requirements:The opponent must have completed at least 3 debates and have an elo above 2000. You must ensure that you have nothing in your schedule that would prevent you from completing your rounds. If you are interested in having this debate, please request in the comments, and I will comment on who the debate is open for. I look forward to having a thoughtful, respectful, and productive debate!
To stop the usage of fossil fuel is the only way to combat global warming

Let me explain to you about the economies which will be affected if the use of fossil fuel is banned 1) India and china are one of the developing nation of the world. They require fossil fuel for the factories made by foreign products companies and many local companies, benefiting their economy. They are second and first most populous countries of the world , so they require a transportation. This system of transportation in both countries is directly or indirectly dependent on fossil fuel. 2) Venezuela and middle eastern countries have large known oil reserves. Their economies are directly dependent on oil export. So if we ban oil export in those countries, their economy will rupture. 3) if the above two countries stop the export of oil to other countries. Those countries will suffer from lack of fossil fuel , required by the people for use in industries and transportation.
To stop the usage of fossil fuel is the only way to combat global warming

1. Your comment about climateange existing before humans exsted is too general and it doesn't negate the fact that we to havea part that plays into the climate phenomenon. Ultimately, we are the most corrosive being on this planet--and this is a fact no one can deny. We distroy forests so we can have buildings.Fossil fuel is the major factor in climate change and global societal unrest. Deforestation is a result of the developments that demand additiona resources fueled (if you will) by fossil fuel.Fossil fuel is not irreplaceable. It is just that we (the powers to be) have chosen not to develop other forms of energy, such as sun, water, corn, etc. There is nothing natural about sending millions of tons of toxic gas into the ozone. Let us stop the usage of fossil fuel and allow our bright minds to develop new ways to sustain our planet. People are not inately dependent on fossil fuel, we made ourselves dependent. Untimately, as creatures of survival, we would find alternatives if fossil fuel is no longer available. Common people are not dependent on fossil fuel (for their transportation) they are dependent on our technological advances. If cars are not affordable due to the cost of fuel, then bikes would easily become the new form of transportation. Thousand of of employers who cannot afford to have their employees miss work would develop new ways of completing projects possibly those involving remote video and virtual networks so that transportation is not necessary.80% of world energy can easily become something else. All it takes is the majority of people choosing a different direction. That is all. We as a society do this all the time. Example, the world trade center, farming, Gold standard
To stop the usage of fossil fuel is the only way to combat global warming

I am going to speak against the motion, as we all know that global climate change have been occurring from much before the existence of human beings. It is not duly dependent on fossil fuels, other factors such as deforestation also have a big hand in causing global warming. By disturbing the natural cycles we have caused a lot of pollution. By stopping the usage of fossil fuel is not the correct way to combat global warming. If we put a ban on use of fossil fuel, the old economy will rupture , the developing nation and middle eastern countries with large oil reserves will lose their main source of income and revenue. It will affect the common people too as most of car use fossil fuels as their source of energy. 80% of world energy comes from coal which is the most important fossil fuel . It will leave us with no electricity. Without electricity the lifestyle of every person will be affected.