BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It would be wise for Scotland to become an independent nation

Sorry, I've been gone all weekend so I couldn't debate. So thats why it said I forfeited. But back to the real topic now. I'm going to put my rebuttal in this round since I wasn't here last round. Plagiarism- the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. I did not take those notes as my own, but I will say this I know he said he wants to debate me so I will. Rebuttal- UK's Debt: Yes I will say UK does have a huge debt, but Scotland only makes up a small portion of it. Most of the debt comes from England and Wales. Which to me makes a lot of since. Also we have seen many nations come out of big debts before. Like the USA. I know it was like hundreds of years after the USA was formed, but it still was one of the biggest debts in the world. It was a challenge, but after creating new jobs as I later said it helped bring the economy back up. British Pounds: I'm not even going to argue with that because it is all true. If Scotland did become independent it would be difficult to get a money system. Because they can no longer use the pound. North Sea Oil: Yes Scotland's oil will run out about 40 years or so from now. But by then Scotland could have found new resources or could have started to really mass produce things to keep there economy a float. which by then it must likely wouldn't hurt the Scottish economy that much. Loss of Political Influence: Yes it would take some time to gain back a lot of political influence, but it wouldn't be hard considering a lot of the world loved Scotland before independence, and they could decide to help them get back on there feet once again. EU: EU most likely will not support Scotland for a while, but after a certain point they would accept Scotland as part of the EU Nuclear Weapons: Well of coarse England will take them out of Scotland, but Scotland would be happy for them to. I have two friends that live in Edinburgh, and they said most of the people hate knowing the nukes aren't that far from them. They said they be happy because they wouldn't have to worry about there house blowing into a million bits. Conclusion: Thank you for letting me debate against you on this topic. It was a great topic to debate, and also I learned more things about what could happen. Scotland Independence everyone.
It would be wise for Scotland to become an independent nation

Round 1: AcceptanceThis debate will be centered around the Scottish Independence Referendum and whether or not it would be wise for Scotland to become independent of the UK. I will be arguing for the Con and will try to show how it would be unwise for Scotland to become independent. My opponent will argue for the Pro side. Debate Structure:Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: ArgumentsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Concluding Statements/RebuttalsNotice: Keep note that this debate will not discuss the historical aspect of the Scottish Independence Referendum (i. e. Scottish Wars of Independence) but will purely analyze the political aspect of the upcoming referendum.
God Can't be All Powerful All Knowing and All Good

Hello Miserlou! Thanks for creating this debate. I agree with your line of thinking for the most part, but enjoy a challenge, so here goes nuthin': < > I disagree and so do the majority of his followers. You state that: "God Can't be All Powerful All Knowing and All Good", but I believe he "CAN" be and is all of those things. < > I will counter each point. <> God "CAN" stop the murder, but chooses not to do so. < > God "CAN" stop the murder that He knows is going to take place, but chooses not to do so. < > God IS all-good, but chooses not to stop it. < > Your expectations of God have no bearing on how He operates. When a Supreme Being can heal all wounds and traumas, and provide infinite happiness for all eternity, how much does murder matter? God "CAN" be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. God IS all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. That does not mean He has to meet your expectations; nor does it mean He has to meet the expectations of others. Our time on Earth is insignificant when compared to our afterlife. How will we be able to properly appreciate His love and gift of immortal bliss without the pain in a short Earthly life? Just because God chooses not to expose Himself, as stated in the Bible, it does not mean He "can't" be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. It just means that He is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, but will not be baited into putting Himself on display.
God Can't be All Powerful All Knowing and All Good

The traditional Judeo-Christian view of God is that he is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. However, this can't be. He can be two out of those three, but not all of them, because if he was then there shouldn't be any problems in the world. I'll use an example of a murder taking place. A)If God is all-powerful, then he has the ability to make happen whatever he wants, so he should be able to stop the murder. B)If God is all-knowing then he knows that murder is going to take place and so can be prepared to stop it. C)If God is all-good then there is no reason that he wouldn't want to stop the murder. Thus, no murders would happen. But we know that they do, and so do a lot of other terrible things. Therefore, if there is a God (and for this I'll assume there is, it's just his nature we're debating) then he can't be all three of these things.
Plants ought to have the right to vote

This is a challenge to famousdebater.Resolved: Plants ought to have the right to vote. This resolution should focus on the United States.Definitions:plants - the group of organisms in the kingdom Plantaeright - legal guaranteevote - a formal indication of a choice between two or more candidates or courses of action, expressed typically through a ballot or a show of hands or by voice.ought - have a moral obligation to Rules: 1. Follow structure2. You accept to the round structure and resolution, terms, etc. as provided in R1. These cannot be changed.3. No deconstruction semantics/plagiarism/trolling/etc. Round structure:Round 1. Acceptace ("I accept" will do)Round 2. Constructive argumentsRound 3. RebuttalsRound 4. DefenseThanks, I'm looking forward to a great debate!
Plants ought to have the right to vote

All of my opponent's arguments hinged on practicality of this resolution being put into place instead of the actual ethics that this debate was focused around. Again, I repeat the resolution: "plants ought to have the right to vote." With the definitions I provided, this means that plants have a moral obligation to have the right to vote.I can try and rebut each of your points based on the merit of each, but I don't feel like it's really necessary. You don't talk about morality of botanical suffrage, just the practicality. As Moti Mizrahi says in his paper, 'Ought Does Not Imply Can', thinking that a moral obligation means feasibility is misguided and not the point of talking about morals. I wanted this debate to talk about the ethics and morals of adding human rights to non-humans, but I must instead remain disappointed. [1]. http://www.academia.edu...;
War in theory

Exactly, war can be necessary, but I don't think anyone would have chosen to go to war against Hitler and Japan if there was a peaceful alternate solution. So many died in that war, and there were devastating effects from it like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. War never has a better outcome than a peaceful solution. Not doing anything about Hitler would not be considered a solution because nothing was solved, there would still have been a problem. If there is a peaceful solution, I cannot think of any time in history and any hypothetical where war is a better idea. It is only beneficial to a country to go to war if there is no way to solve the problem without it.
Respect should be earned

Nope. Judges you can entirely throw PRO's definition in the trash can. He has accepted my definition by accepting the round, which includes politness and anything partaining to basic respect. No where do I say we should admire everyone. My definition stands, his isn't allowed, meaning he has presented litterally no arguments against my case thus far. This means I am upholding my BOP to show why we shoud all be given basic respect, while my opponent hasn't fullfilled his to show people should have to earn basic respect.So far pro loses automatically. My opponent's last chance to argue is next round.
Respect should be earned

With your comparison of Basic Respect and Personal Respect I believe you are mistaking politeness with respect "Respect" according to Merriam-Webster is "a feeling of admiring someone or something that is good, valuable, important, etc" - http://www.merriam-webster.com... So with this you are implying that we should admire everything and everyone, regardless of what they do or say, Politeness is something that everyone should be by default, not polite
Respect should be earned

The reason why respect should be earned is simple, not everyone is a good person, not everyone deserves to be held in the same regard as everyone else. Should we respect the feelings of those who have inflicted harm on others for no good cause? If a Scientist and someone who has almost no scientific knowledge opinions on a very pressing topic be held in the same regard? If someone is an expert in a field their voice should be the first one heard, not someone who has no experience in it people should not have to pretend to like everyone they meet, because a lot of people don't deserve respect.
Respect should be earned

This round ends very simply. Here's the story. I started a debate that respect should be earner, where respect means common courtesy, politness and care for a person's basic rights and value as a person. My oppenent neglected to read littelly the second of only two lines in the first round, where I define it as such. Pro instead accepts the debate with a different definition of respect which he posted the round before last and said we are actually debating that definition. Thing is, he already accepted my definition by joining this debate. Furthermore, the definition shift is my opponent's Only argument, being that this is now void, my arguments go utterly unrefuted and my burden of proof is fulfilled, meanwhile Pro fails to justify that we should make people earn what I call basic respect.
A decent god should not send people to hell for an eternity for merely not believing in him.

Before I start my actual arguments, I would just like to say this is my first debate on this site, and I don't necessarily believe in the position I'm advocating. But I do have experience debating in college, so here goes… There are a few things I would like to state that I believe are important to my argument. First, I will contend that god has given man free will. I believe this is in line with the most reasonable sects of Christianity. Having said this, I will first address my opponents arguments. My opponent contends that sending people to hell for not believing is excessive considering god offers no proof of his existence. The problem here is that god has offered proof of his existence, his word (the bible) and his son (Jesus). God offers a direct path and method to reach him, this alone should be enough to justify ones belief. One has the choice to embrace or reject god, if one requires more evidence to believe, then one must also accept the risks of not believing. This argument seems based on the idea that reaching heaven should be easy. God gives us the ability to live our life the way we wish. If man should choose to reject god, why should god choose to accept them? My opponents next point is that hell should not be created in the first place. When one really thinks through the concept of hell, one clearly sees its purpose and necessity of it, If man has free will, he has a choose to good or evil. If man believes that there is only a good place to go when he dies (heaven), then what incentive does man have to do good. Hell exists so man has an incentive to do good. God would hope that man does good, but if man does bad, then why reward that person? As for the ant example, I don't really believe this applies in this instance, but if later I am proven wrong on this point, I will answer it at that time. Now to why sending people to hell for not believing is good. Believing in god is the path to heaven. As stated in my opponents introduction, believing is Jesus and god is the only way to have one's sins forgiven. If one has rejected the only path to forgiveness, then god is justified in sending those people to hell. The evil they have done in this world remains a stain upon them, and so they must pay for their wrongs. God has given us life, and has given us the ability to live our lives the way we wish. Our very existence is due to him. God has given us everything, and offers paradise upon our death, and what does he ask in return? Simply to believe, and not even for your entire life, just that you eventually come to believe in him. For everything god gives us, if we are unwilling to offer anything in return, then god is more than justified in punishing us.
A decent god should not send people to hell for an eternity for merely not believing in him.

First of all I would like to point out that I am referring to the Christian god. According to the Christian bible(perhaps not all Christian bibles but you understand which ones I am talking about) to get into heaven you pretty much need to believe in Jesus and ask for forgiveness for your sins. So what happens when you do not believe in the Christian god? You can't get into heaven right? So then I guess you go to hell.. Doesn't that seem like a bit much? He doesn't even seem to want to give us any real proof that he exists. He let human hands write the bibles and sure he supposedly performs miraculous healings even today but you would think with our eternal souls at stake and being all powerful he could at least show himself to us or make some crazy voice echo from the skies letting us know he is still there but no.. it's as if he is purposely trying to tempt a lot of decent people into thinking he is imaginary. Why did God even have to create hell in the first place? Then he sends us there just for not believing in his book. If he is all powerful then surely he knew that he would be creating a lot of people who he knew would not believe and would be sent to hell. Pretend for a second a kid decides to get an ant farm so he can enjoy watching them. That sounds ok right? Well what about when the kid decides to take some of the ants he doesn't like and burn them with a magnifying glass? Fry puny ants fry! If you could please give me some reasons as to how burning someone for eternity is the right thing to do to someone who doesn't believe in you I would like to hear them.
War in Afghanistan

"Peace is not something you wish for; It's something you make." Robert Fulghum. That is exactly what you will get from passing the affirmative plan, peace. 1.The Con has neglected my point from the last couple rounds that we will not be continuing the war in Afghanistan. When looking over the last couple speeches con has missed some of the key points. 2.Con must not have understood my Pakistan advantage which says that by doing the affirmative plan we stabilize Pakistan. The con has also neglected my second advantage which is terrorism so say you don't totally believe the aff can solve Pakistan stability because con did not argue terrorism in the last round you cannot let them bring it back up in their next speech. This will be abusive to us as the affirmative side because con gets the last speech and gives you the last impression. So even if we don't solve for Pakistan stability which we do, we still solve for terrorism. Which is still a huge deal, for every terrorist killed 500 civilians are saved! The following piece of evidence is from the Pakistan advantage that will explain it a little more. Withdrawing from Afghanistan would strengthen relations with Pakistan and help to stabilize Pakistan and Afghanistan. Benjamin L. Landis Retired military server for 27 years. 2010 The fourth benefit to be gained by a military withdrawal would be the opportunity for the government of Pakistan to erase the stigma of being a United States pawn. It would give the government of Pakistan more freedom of action and the opportunity to play the primary role in the stabilization of the situation in Afghanistan and in its own border territories. At the same time, it would free the United States to work with all factions of Pakistani society without the stigma of intervening militarily in Pakistani-Afghan affairs. As a matter of fact, Pakistan is far more significant geopolitically than Afghanistan, especially in view of its nuclear capability and its relations with India. If Afghanistan were to fall again under the yoke of a Taliban government, the geopolitical effect would be nil, on the same level as would be a coup d'ï¿½tat in the Republic of the Congo. 3.Also the negative side has not given any evidence or someone with the right credentials that says anything about this Islamic religion argument. Because of this issue the negative team MUST be voted down and these arguments must be disregarded. For the fairness of this debate and debates to follow.
The Government should pay housewives

In conclusion I would like to present a summary of my points and counter arguments. Housewives should be paid by the government because they experience higher amounts of stress than women who work, Being near children for mothers causes three times as much stress than fathers, And they need to have a wide skill-set for something they are not paid for. For clarification, I do not believe that women on maternity leave are housewives. Women on maternity leave should also be included because it would benefit both them and their employers. It could also help towards the wage gap, As employers pay women less because they can just leave work when they are pregnant. They also have no choice but to leave work-they are forced into a situation where they may or may not receive pay. If a system like this were implemented, They would not receive wages like an employee, But as compensation. I am not suggesting they do this but because of tax money portioning, Being a stay-at-home mother isn't going to just rake in money. Women are better suited financially, Physically, And emotionally (the baby wants the mother not the father) to stay at home and take care of the children than the fathers. Fathers can take care of their children, However at the early stages of life, It would be against the point to do so. The End.
The Government should pay housewives

It is true that women on maternity leave choose to leave work in order to take care of their child. However, We have to look at the definition of the word choice in another context-as a working woman who has to leave work in order to take care of a child. In this case the mother has to "choose" between staying at her job or taking care of their child. Note that women on maternity leave aren't women that decide to leave, But are women that either pregnant or nursing. These women cannot stay in work while in their final months of pregnancy, Or bring their children to work with them. There is no choice because the only option is for them to leave work, Not "take a break". Another point that you made was that they are not doing any work, And this is true. However, According to Gallup Polls, Stay-at-home mothers-or housewives-reportedly have had higher levels of stress, Depression, And sadness. This kind of mental state doesn't come from some office job, But from mothers that just stay home. This is because taking care of a child is a job. You have to feed them ever 2-3 hours (as a baby), Clean up after them, Nurse them, Teach them, And many more. The list of things that mothers have to do is maybe even comparable to an office job, And yet produces monumentally more amounts of stress. You also say that housewives have no intention of getting a job, But this is not true. According to the research firm Reach Advisers, 57% of mothers plan on going back to work. The second point that you made was that implementing a system like this would promote misogynist views, But that is simply not true. The reason that women are the ones that sometimes have the option of maternity leave is because babies have to be nursed-given milk or breastfed-for 6 months up to 2 years after they are born. Men cannot take care of babies or maybe even toddlers because when we are young we imprint on our mothers, As they give birth to us. You also mentioned that this system would encourage women to become housewives. Why? If a system like this were implemented in the US, Surely women would get paid far less than a 6-figure job. This is because the portioning of tax money would not allow women to make high amounts of money from just staying at home.
The Government should pay housewives

Coincidentally this is also my first debate, So I guess that way we're both newbies. Welcome! As in introduction to my argument I would like to question your definition of "housewives". You state that, When deciding which women should be payed by the government, Women on maternity leave should be included. To me, This doesn't make sense. Housewives, I believe, Are women who stay at home instead of working, To take care of the kids, Clean the house, Do menial tasks; etc. . . Women on maternity are not housewives. They have a job, But are taking a break from their job to care for their newborn child. When this period is over, They will go back to that job. Women on maternity leave are working women, And in this scenario I agree that shifting the pay during this period from employer to state would certainly diminish employer's hesitance to hire women, Despite that they may have various qualifications, This is however, An entirely different debate. When it comes to actual housewives, I do not believe they should be paid by the government. This because a stay-at-home-mum chose to stay at home. Some political groups believe in the state supporting those currently going through a rough patch, By providing them with a minimum loan to get back on their feet while they are hired. Housewives do not fall into this category. Again, It was their decision to stay at home. They are not doing any work beneficial to society, A company, An organisation, No. They work in the household because they believed that would be better for their family. They aren't going through a rough patch, And have no intention of getting a job. While, Of course, They have to take care of their home, Any household has to take care of its home. In a family where both parents work, This responsibility is stacked on top of the parents' jobs. A housewife doesn't have any of the responsibilities that come with employment, So why should we compensate them as if they did? The answer is: we shouldn't. On top of the concept being poorly justified, It might motivate women to become housewives, Because why work when you could just do some laundry and get paid anyways? This would bring us back to older times where women not working was the standard, And further magnify the gender inequality activist groups have spent so long diminishing. Aside from promoting (misogynist) sexism, It would also enforce a different kind of sexism: misandry. This because you are advocating only for women's privilege. Because being paid for staying at home is not a right, It is a privilege. This would be unfair to men. Can men not stay at home? Are men not allowed to spend time with their kids? It seems to me by making the state pay housewives you are sending a message. A message that says: "Men are useless with kids anyways, They don't even deserve to be at home. " From my point of view, While paying housewives may on the surface seems like a way to lessen women's disadvantage, It would actually manifest in various other disadvantages, Both for women and men, And further deepen the inequality this measure is trying to solve.