BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Diversity is Bad

First off I agree with the notion that diversity in brain chemistry is inherently good, and that without people with different views and ideas humanity would be doomed. I would also agree that a certain level of invisible bio-diversity- resistance to certain types of diseases- is also good. But diversity in looks only serves to divide us. It would be entirely better if we lived in a world in which people are not divided by their looks, but by their ideas and actions. We as a species have evolved past the need to have different skin color, eye color, hair color and ear shape. Diversity from birth to look a certain way is a fate an individual has to live with for the rest of their life. An ugly person is doomed to be shunned. Skin color leads to tribal-like conflicts within diverse communities. It is entirely natural for humans to perceive others as alien and different if they look a certain way. Everyone has an inherent innate racism, and the need to constantly keep it in check is a drain upon society. It would be entirely better if there were no differences between people when they were born based on race, and if everyone could have the same skin color, eye color and hair color. People can express themselves by dying their hair and wearing different clothes, but race is something that the individual did not chose and cannot stop expressing to others. This is an unnecessary harm that we would be better off without.
Diversity is Bad

The only reason diversity seems bad is because humans perceive others to be different - too different to their liking. For example, I don't discriminate blacks and whites, but do you discriminate sharp and soft ears? Dark vs light hair? Diversity is not only a way to adapt to the surrounding environment, it is a way to individualise the brain - so radical views that nobody would think of can be explained - by a person with radical views himself. Diversity is one of the best things ever put into existence, and we should be polite to those with radical views - those who think blacks might have a disadvantage - etcetera. If we stopped being diverse, the human species would be evolutionarily damned. Conclusion: Diversity isn't bad. The actions of a few of the people it produces happen to be.
Diversity is Bad

I assert that the existence of race/human diversity is a plight/curse upon humanity and it would be entirely better if it did not exist. Race is defined as large groups of people who have similar skin color, hair and/or other features. Examples of a 'race' are white/European and black/African. The effects of diversity is intolerance and hate between groups, and the need to constantly berate and oversee the two opposing peoples so that they do not commit aggression upon one another. Diversity causes people to focus on their differences instead of other issues. It causes politicians to get elected merely because they pander to one race or another instead of presenting policy or merit. Diversity allows corporations to drive down wages because of distrust instilled between the races and the inability to bargain together. It allows both the existence of a mistreated underclass and a native population that cares less about the new incoming worker's conditions because they are alien and different. Diversity causes a country to become divided and unhappy. Diversity causes communities to draw inward and become fearful of one another. Humanity would be better off with only one global race.
Morals cannot exist without a god.

//You think that a moral law implies a moral law giver, but I submit that it does not have to come from divine ordinance.// Here you contradict yourself. If we go with your claim before the comma then we must ignore the last part which implies a law giver (but not god) but if we go with the second half we must ignore the first. You see the problem correct? //we know that killing someone is wrong, or bad, because it is risks the survival of our species.// How do we know that killing is wrong when it is done in the name of land and lord and people who do kill are seen as patriots. I am arguing that there are no morals but if there were they must come from a god and this statement proves my point exactly. The reason this is so is due to the fact that not everyone thinks killing is bad. Anyone that has supported any kind of war, any kind of occupation, any kind of blockade ect has supported killing and thus there are no morals in our society. If there were morals ie. X IS wrong and Y IS right then that would require a law giver, something that is all knowing, a god. But assuming we ignore this and go with the assertion that subjective are morals we could still say that the morals come from god due to the fact that god says "Thou shalt not kill" ergo, if we follow the line of reasoning that killing/commiting genocide is immoral then we can safely assert it came from a god due to the fact that god told us that these things are immoral long before our society, long before humans for that matter. I do not ask who the law giver is, I say this "If we ignore my previous argument regarding morals and assert that they do, in fact, exist, then they come from a god of sorts".
Morals cannot exist without a god.

I agree with your definition of morals. The definition of moral law is where we differ. You think that a moral law implies a moral law giver, but I submit that it does not have to come from divine ordinance. I think that morals can come from truth of reason. Morals are an evolutionary trait that we've acquired that prevent us from doing immoral actions that risk damaging our own species. This is why, as a society, (not through god), we know that killing someone is wrong, or bad, because it is risks the survival of our species. As long as we have the truth of reason and the built-in, instinctual knowledge that murder, genocide, etc. are evil, there can be morals. These ARE morals. And I don't think there is any controversy over this. It is wrong to kill, and commit immoral acts because these acts endanger our race. This is what good and bad is, nobody really "decides", we just have to be this way or else we'd kill ourselves off and we wouldn't exist. The question is this though, where do these morals come from? Divine ordinance or truth of reason. You ask who the law giver is. I answer: truth of reason, our evolutionary ability to discern right from wrong, a.k.a what is helpful or harmful to our species.
Morals cannot exist without a god.

Since my opponent has failed to define morals I feel that I must do so. Moral(s) are defined as "of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong"[1] This is showing that in order for there to be morals there must be some right or wrong. Right and wrong are aspects of moral law and thus there must be a law giver to say that X is right and Y is wrong. If there is not than you have a bunch of people with differing opinions on things. We can see that our world does not have morals because there is no god, all we have a rudimentary societal constraints ergo there cannot be moral law if there is no law giver [God]. I await my opponent's response. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Beijing Olympics 2008 will not change India....

My opponent as failed to come back to his debate to refute my arguments. I showed last round that there is almost certainly be a small change in India due to the Beijing Olympics 2008. If one wants to claim that a small change does not negate the resolution, I also showed that small changes end up having large effects in the long run. My rebuttals and my arguments still stand. I will end my second round with that, and hope that my opponent returns to finish the debate he started.
Beijing Olympics 2008 will not change India....

I agree that India has performed better than the previous years. Abhinav Bindra became the first individual gold medalist, and Vijendra Singh and Sushil Kumar too performed incredibly well. However, I don't think that India will ever be able to perform as the US and the Chinese did. A few reasons supporting my argument. 1. Most of the Indians are interested only in cricket. It is the only sport that attracts attention from the Indians. 2. The infrastructure of the government does not support other sports. 3. People usually do not take up sports as a career even if they are talented, because of the insecurity of sports in India. 4. Financial crisis is yet another important factor. 5. Education is stressed upon where as sports, art and music are neglected and discouraged. It is a common misconception in India that people who have qualified as great intellectuals or someone who is really good at maths or science are intelligent. Sports persons(except cricketers) and musicians are considered, to be frank, no less than fools. They are never given importance, except a few. India can never prosper in the field of sports except cricket. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modern Feminism

Actually, the "wage gap" has to do with comparing lower-rate jobs to higher-rate jobs, and women in higher rate jobs are newer, thus receiving less pay. NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE WOMEN! But I guess a sexist-feminist like yourself wouldn't understand. And by the way, look up the stats. There are, in fact, a higher percentage of welfare recipients that have NO JOB APPLICATION OUT that consistently vote democrat. Democrats are the moochers and bad people that simply can't do anything without a hard working tax payer holding their hand. THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO IT! Political views are all about personality. Republican voters tend to have a higher work ethic than democrat voters. This is pure analysis of the voting public. Like it or not, democrats tend to be the lazier party that doesn't do any work on their own. Detroit, bankrupt, democrat controlled. Chicago, not very stable economic situation, highest murder rate in the country, democrat controlled. WASHINGTON D.C., UNTIL NOW THEY'VE BEEN ON THE DRASTIC DECLINE IN ECONOMICS! THE ONLY REASON WE ARE STARTING TO HAVE DEBT REDUCING BUDGETS IS BECAUSE THERE IS A REPUBLICAN MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE NOW! And Hillary herself her family was, "dead broke," when they left the White House. So yes, democrats tend to mooch off of other hardworking people. Now, in conclusion, I have shown you why my ideals point me this direction, all you have done is suck on the lie that "women aren't equal." I have very well shown that there is a distinct difference between TRUE and MODERN feminists. TRUE feminists, being hardworking, ethical women supporting equality (REPUBLICANS). MODERN feminists, being lazy, mooching, evil, pro-female superiority (DEMOCRATS). Thank you, and God bless America.
Modern Feminism

REBUTTALSCon: Your argument saying that it's basically okay to want female superiority does in fact show that modern feminists are BAD!Nowhere do I say this. Con, feel free to quote me to prove this point.Con: 1. The wage gap is a myth created to divide us as a people.Yeah, no. A wage gap exists. CONSAD agrees [13]; the Bureau of Labor Statistics agrees [14]; the Joint Economic Committee agrees [15]; the Government Accountability Office agrees [16].And really? Someone created it to divide people? In response, I'll argue that people who think the wage gap doesn't exist (such as Con) are all part of a gigantic international conspiracy to cause division over gender issues, and can't be trusted.Con: 2. The difference between Hillary and Sarah is that Hillary is a democrat and known for living off other peoples money and Sarah is a hard working republican.Rrrright. I'm gonna wait for the sources that prove Democrat = Bad and Republican = Good, and that Ms. Clinton is a moocher while Ms. Palin is not.Con: Modern feminism, once again, wants EVERYTHING handed to them. Real feminism wants a CHANCE (which they have equally) to be successful and want to earn everything they are given. Thank you.Con didn't bother addressing the ~20 quotes I brought up above, which show broad support from modern feminism behind the ideal of equality between men and women. In fact, Con has done no effort whatsoever to prove that modern feminism actually supports female supremacy.SUMMARYThere's no reason to vote Con. Con has failed to show that modern feminism is for female supremacy. Con has no sources for any of their claims. Con uses incendiary rhetoric to appeal to emotion.Pro has shown beyond a doubt that modern feminism and "true" feminism share a goal of gender equality.REFERENCES[13] consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf[14] bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook-2011.pdf (p. 52)[15] jec.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=9118a9ef-0771-4777-9c1f-8232fe70a45c (p. 9-11)[16] gender-competence.eu/files/IntConf/5.pdf (p. 6-7, 11)
Modern Feminism

Your argument saying that it's basically okay to want female superiority, does in fact show that modern feminists are BAD! I am not going to go into extensive details on quotes and such but 1. The wage gap is a myth created to divide us as a people. 2. The difference between Hillary and Sarah is that Hillary is a democrat and known for living off other peoples money and Sarah is a hard working republican. Modern feminism, once again, wants EVERYTHING handed to them. Real feminism wants a CHANCE (which they have equally) to be successful and want to earn everything they are given. Thank you.
Modern Feminism

I am a man who is all for feminism. But only the correct feminism. There is a LARGE difference between MODERN and REAL feminism. Real feminists are pro-equality. Modern feminists are pro-women. That is the true essence of why they are not the same. The real feminists (Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, etc.) are the women that want EQUAL treatment, rights, abilities, and opportunities. They want to be defended equally in law and seen as EQUALS in the eyes of everyone. Modern feminists (Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, etc.) support pushing for women to not only be equal but actually have MORE rights and privileges than men. THAT IS NOT OKAY! I fully support equality for men and women both but I do not support one side having more power or rights or abilities or opportunities than the other. Ever. TRUE feminists believe that women must make success happen for themselves (just like men have to do). But modern feminists believe men should be forced to hand them opportunities or else it is a "misogyny." I just live by the simple ideal that EVERYONE (male or female) should HAVE to EARN ANYTHING THEY WANT! I will never support handing ANYONE anything! I've never been handed anything and I don't believe handing people anything, especially based off sex, is not okay. We need to raise an America with strong, independent people that can fend for themselves. Thank you.
Homosexual couples should be allowed to have families of their own.

Better late than never, Convoluted-Logic! Thanks for continuing the debate... I can see the rationale behind allowing same sex couples to adopt children (though single people are rarely allowed to adopt) but that is not the same as deliberately bringing a child into the world - a world that is already over-populated with its finite natural resources chronically over-stretched. Since it is impossible for both parents to conceive a child together and thereby pass on their genes (the basic natural function of all animals, humans included), why not adopt? This way the adoption agencies will be able to properly assess the couple to establish that they are entering into parenthood for the right reasons and not wishing to have children merely to acquire a status symbol. Thank you.
Homosexual couples should be allowed to have families of their own.

My apologies for leaving you so long without a response, I've been experiencing some issues with my Internet connection. Thank you for being so patient. I'm not trying to say that children are commodities that we should be able to pick and choose or wear like accessories, nor that they should be taken lightly - they are a huge responsibility. I completely agree that the children should come first. However, I personally cannot see the issue in the notion of both parents being of the same gender. You've stated that children need both parents, but this acclamation is disproved in everyday life already. Yes, male and female input would be ideal, but it isn't a necessity for a child to succeed. Single parents are becoming more and more of a normality in our current stage of society, but children aren't suddenly turning into thugs or rebels, grades aren't falling, and no one is starting riots over a lack of perceivable secure families around the globe. Also, in homosexual couples, one person will always take on a masculine role and the other, a feminine. Now, I know this isn't exactly the same, but it still gives the contrast of gentle and strong for the child to develop into a character of their own. As far as I can see, all a child truly needs to succeed in life is a secure base, made up of people who love them, gender aside.
Decriminalizing recreational marijuana.

Critical Notice of My Opponent’s Arguments My opponent’s entire 3rd round argument was based on the claim that legalizing economic marijuana is bad for the economy. However, the resolution of the debate was that: “Decriminalizing recreational marijuana is wrong.” The fact that he was arguing that legalizing marijuana was bad when the topic was about decriminalizing marijuana makes his entire 3rd round erroneous.Nonetheless, I shall make some notes about my opponent’s arguments. He claims decriminalizing (or was it legalizing?) recreational marijuana has shown to be detrimental to the economy of Amsterdam. His only justification for this was based on a quote from Yahoo. He has not shown how such evidence supports his position. I certainly don’t see how this supports his argument at all! He also claims that legalizing (or was it decriminalizing?) marijuana would cause its price to drop considerably. He cites an article from the website ‘Daily Paul’ to support this. Ironically however, it would appear that the original article supports my position! At the end of the article, the author, ‘OFallonBrent’ writes: “Let's keep the prices high to send more money to criminal organizations, destabilize our borders, and put financial burdens on both sick and healthy users. [new paragraph] Yeah! That’s the ticket!” Surely, this doesn’t support my opponent’s argument! The only justification for this is the fact that ‘marijuana is bad for health.’ [1] I have already shown that decriminalizing marijuana does not increase its usage. My opponent ignores this. I address the claim that ‘marijuana is bad for health ergo recreational marijuana should not be decriminalized’ argument next in the next round, after my opponent has had a change to clarify himself [1] http://www.dailypaul.com...
Decriminalizing recreational marijuana.

Economic effects of legalizing recreational marijuana According to sources, the decriminalization of medial marijuana has negative economic effects. "Legalizing marijuana can make or break an economy, as witnessed by Amsterdam, an area that legalizes many drugs and allows tourists to enjoy these types of drugs in certain locations. With tourists flooding into Amsterdam strictly to enjoy the high grade of marijuana products in the area, it becomes readily apparent that there is all manner of money to be spent on the average popular mind altering substance." [1] I recognize that this piece of evidence supports your argument, but it supports mine as well. I will now list another piece of evidence: "A ballot measure to legalize marijuana in California would so upend supply and demand that pot prices could plummet by as much as 90 percent and possibly undercut the tax windfall that supporters have touted to sell the initiative, a study published Wednesday found. The study by the nonpartisan RAND Drug Policy Research Center forecasts some interesting scenarios if California in November becomes the second state, after Alaska, to legalize pot for recreational use by adults and the first to tax commercial cannabis sales. Pot prices could drop from $375 an ounce under the state's current medical marijuana law to as little as $38 per ounce before taxes as legal pot suddenly becomes available to the public, RAND researchers concluded." [2] I have already spoken about the health aspect of marijuana. Now, given this new information, I do not believe anyone can support the decriminalization of recreational marijuana. It can deeply wound our economy as well as causing health issues for uncountable people. [1] http://voices.yahoo.com... [2] http://www.dailypaul.com...
Decriminalizing recreational marijuana.

I thank Con for instigating what I hope would be an enlightening debate. In this debate, I am arguing that 'Recreational marijuana should be decriminalized,' or 'Decriminalizing recreational marijuana is right.' Con, on the other hand is arguing that 'Decriminizing recreational marijuana is wrong' or 'Recreational marijuana should not be decriminalized.'As the rules explicitly state that the first round is only for acceptance or stating your position, I shall wait until the next round before giving definitions.
If a business wants to allow smoking then the so be it, government should stay out!

I don't know who OHSA is, but additional rights given to employees is a whole other topic of debate. Every person in the United States is entitles to certain rights but it is a persons choice to work for a business, so if that person chooses to work for that business then that person gives up all of their rights except one which is thier right to leave. People choose to work for companies, people choose to go into businesses. Now banning all smoking in government building I would 100% agree with because government buildings are public buildings which people some point in their life may have to go into to straighten something out or get a car inspected or something in that manor, go to court. If people choose not to go into a public building when some type of problem occurs such as going to a mandatory court hearing for a traffic ticket then a warrant for that person arrest will be issued, so they have to go to that court room. But if a person chooses not to go into a bar that permits smoking no warrants of arrest will be issued they can simply keep on walking. but you bring up that if a person chooses to walk by on a public side walk that the bars second hand smoke may seep out or come out as the door open and now the person has breathed in the toxic gas unwillingly which is a valid point that I had not thought of previously. so we agree on a common problem but your solution is wrong. You can not escape that if you make it a law to ban a business from spewing poisonous gas into the air for the citizens to breath then what is to stop someone from making a law against driving cars with combustible engines. You say because cars are necessary but car are not necessary at least not in every case, in many cases it is a convenience. Are you saying there is no one in the country that can walk, skate, ride their bike or use some other means besides a car to survive or even just go to work. What about people who just enjoy going on joy rides. Those people may be having a joy ride but through out their entire ride they are poisoning every person in the near area at least in some small or not so small way. Is joy riding necessary lvisman? How do you justify joy riding? Should we make joy riding against the law? And that is just one example there are so many more. We agree on a common problem lvisman but you must agree with me that your solution is too flawed to be the right answer to the problem.