BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Polygamy should be allowed in the United States.

"There are many different definitions of marriage; rather then just have one, why can't people all have their own definition?" Then it wouldn't be what is known as marriage. Diet Coke is not the same as regular Coke. If I was in a restaraunt and I ordered a Coke, they give me a Diet Coke, and I ask what's up and they say "Oh, it's pretty much the same." It's not the same!! Just like the "Man+Woman" marriage and the "Man+Man+Woman+Woman+Man/Woman" marriage, it's not the same. And to what was said about me agreeing with my opposition, here it goes. We all can have opinions, yeah, it's true. Blue can be my favorite color, green can be yours. Oreos can be my favorite cookie, Chips Ahoy! can be yours. But the government has to decide which is the best color or best cookie to protect America. Yes, America was based on freedom, but too much freedom leads to bad things. Government can be defined as: "a branch or service of the supreme authority of a state or nation, taken as representing the whole." The keyword is 'Whole'. The government is here to protect the whole of the United States, not a radical minority. The only way the law will be changed to fit that radicalism is if the minority became a majority. Right now, the majority of Americans look at marriage by the religious definition. (I won't say Christian Marriage because the Jewish religion and other religions have similar marriage ideals.) Therefore the government protects the Religious view of marriage, because it is the majority. Therefore, any other view of marriage is just white noise unless there is a swing in marital definition. Right now, marriage is between one man and one woman (Man & Man, or Woman & Woman in some states).
Polygamy should be allowed in the United States.

"I am not assuming that religion is right. Just because it's what I believe, doesn't mean that I think everybody has to believe it. That's what first amendment rights protect." EXACTLY! See the problem with that statement is when you involve religion in government or laws you have to start making choices between what is right and what is wrong, legal and illegal. When you adopt the Christian belief of marriage and deem others illegal you make one religion better or right and the others wrong. This is why we have adopted separation of church and state. "I do believe that there shouldn't be an act passed saying polygamy should be made legal, but then again there shouldn't be an act passed that says it is illegal. It is a personal preference, and it is not the government's right to deny that preference." Which is it? You yourself have supported my argument. This is a country of FREEDOM, what right do we have to impede upon the rights of others and their choices? It it not the government's right to deem something as opinionated as marriage legal or illegal. There are many different definitions of marriage; rather then just have one, why can't people all have their own definition?
Polygamy should be allowed in the United States.

"I'm not saying religion is right, but I know it's not wrong." I am not assuming that religion is right. Just because it's what I believe, doesn't mean that I think everybody has to believe it. That's what first amendment rights protect. This debate shouldn't be about right or wrong, it should be about respecting people's personal preferences and deciding for yourself what you want to believe in. Polygamy is not something I agree with, but I shouldn't shove my opinions down everyone's throats. I do believe that there shouldn't be an act passed saying polygamy should be made legal, but then again there shouldn't be an act passed that says it is illegal. It is a personal preference, and it is not the government's right to deny that preference. Polygamists should not be given "marriage" as many Americans know of today. We should give them the same rights as married couples. (Hospital Rights, Adoption Rights, etc.) But "marriage" should stay as it has been in American Society, between a man and a woman.
War Debate: The People's Republic of China vs. USA

Countering ConSo I have a few objections to what occurs during my opponent's turn. First off he isn't nor shouldn't be able to amount an attack of 520,000 concidering that the entire US Powergrid has been knocked out so there is no chance for any type of communication between Americans. Not to mention that they are already starving. Food continues to become more and more rarer as people continue to starve as nothing has been done as it's now have been half a year without people having access to proper food. We can see that those who aren't starving in the US are farming and moral is Low. This is showing things from World War 1 where Russians were revolting due to lack of bread and at the end of the War when the entire German military collapsed as they went home to help their starving families. They may be soldiers, BUT they are also human beings. So we can see that the US military, or what's left of it, is on the verge of collapse and with no valid government and a starving population, President Xi Jinping wishes that the US surrenders as soon as possible for the sake of the suffering Americans. My TurnOpperation Khan (cont.)Richmond falls with ease so I now split my tropps on land (100,000), between 25,000 and 75,000 in the East. The 25,000 continue North into the forbidden Fallout Zone and Hoist the Chinese Flag on the ruins of the Capital Building. The 75,000 march towards Charleston, West Virginia in order to seize key coal mines. They face a small Army detatchment, but only suffer minor casulties. 10 days later the 25,000 splits into 7,000 and 18,000. 7,000 stay in DC with a small group of ships to protect them from the water and the rest march on to Baltimore. Up north the Chinese Forces march South towards the port city of Boston. Where the 1 million Chinese troops face an already battered 300,000 (assuming that they were even contacted minus the death toll from the the Kugelblitz, so we can roughly estimate that their actual numbers are around 63,000) Chinese forces attack from land, air, and sea, and Boston will fall after 17 days. (same tatics as Tarawa).Opperation Petergrad (West)Chinese forces continue inward to the Oregon Capital of Salem continuing use of the Kugelblitz methood fighting and once again destorying most of what is left of the US forces in the West. Seeing how desimated the US is I urge the United States to surrender for the sake of its suffering population.
War Debate: The People's Republic of China vs. USA

I thank my friend for this debate and I choose to defend. I will post my strength here MANPOWER Total Population: 320,202,220 Available Manpower: 145,212,012 Fit for Service: 120,022,084 Reaching Military Age Annually: 4,217,412] Active Frontline Personnel: 1,400,000 Active Reserve Personnel: 1,100,000 LAND SYSTEMS Tank value includes Main Battle Tanks, light tanks and tank destroyers, either wheeled or tracked. AFV value includes Armored Personnel Carriers (APCs) and Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFVs). Tanks: 8,848 Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFVs): 41,062 Self-Propelled Guns (SPGs): 1,934 Towed-Artillery: 1,299 Multiple-Launch Rocket Systems (MLRSs): 1,331 AIR POWER Includes both fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft from all branches of service. Total Aircraft: 13,892 Fighters/Interceptors: 2,207 Fixed-Wing Attack Aircraft: 2,797 Transport Aircraft: 5,366 Trainer Aircraft: 2,809 Helicopters: 6,196 Attack Helicopters: 920 NAVAL POWER Aircraft Carrier value includes dedicated "helicopter carrier" vessels. Total naval strength includes all known auxiliaries as well. Total Naval Strength: 473 Aircraft Carriers: 20 Frigates: 10 Destroyers: 62 Corvettes: 0 Submarines: 72 Coastal Defense Craft: 13 Mine Warfare: 11 RESOURCES (PETROLEUM) Despite the advances made in battlefield technology, oil remains the lifeblood of any fighting force as well as local economy. Oil Production: 7,441,200 bbl/day Oil Consumption: 19,000,000 bbl/day] Proven Oil Reserves: 20,680,000,000 bbl/day LOGISTICAL War is as much a battle of logistics - moving man and machine from points all over - as it is direct combat. Labor Force reflects possible wartime industry strength. Labor Force: 155,400,000 Merchant Marine Strength: 393] Major Ports and Terminals: 24 Roadway Coverage: 6,586,610 Railway Coverage: 224,792 Serviceable Airports: 13,513 FINANCIAL (in USD) Regardless of military strength in numbers, war is still driven by financing as much as any one leader or weapon. Defense Budget: $577,100,000,000 External Debt: $15,680,000,000,000 Reserves of Foreign Exchange and Gold: $150,200,000,000 Purchasing Power Parity: $16,720,000,000,000 GEOGRAPHY (in km) Geographical values primarily figure into a defensive-minded war (i.e. invasion). Square Land Area: 9,826,675 km Coastline: 19,924 km Shared Border: 12,048 km Waterways: 41,009 km Let the battle begin!
Women are more complicated than men

My opponent makes some very good points. I do agree, many things that women do can be obvious, some of which are not complicated at all. But some people were never"taught how" as my opponent stated, and do not posses the social skills required to understand, communicate or make an accurate judgement about a female. Therefore it's mislabeled as confusing or just plain complicated.There are however various biological reasons women can be more complicated, such as hormones and and physical features. Eyes, hair, breast size, weight, height etc. all of which women seem to obsess about. Most men do not care about there hair color, eye color, breast size, height, weight etc. We shower, shave, get dressed and go!For this round I will assert that women may not be more complicated, but rather have a tendency to over-complicate a situation. Whether it's a trait inherent in females or just a personality trait, I feel, has yet to be determined.First off, I think some women have a hard time making day to day decisions, even simple ones like what to have for dinner. But if you take a look at how a women function, it seems natural for them to think things over and weigh out the possibilities, since they are "the analyzers" of the sexes.Let's start with ordering dinner. Seems each time I'm out to dinner, the women can never decide on what to order and always end up asking the waiter for advice, 9 times out of 10 the wait staff couldn't care less and just points something out to appease the customer, yet the women feels satisfied she made a good choice.What about getting ready to go out for a night on the town? As a male, how many times have you been asked these questions, "Honey, what should I wear tonight?" "Do these shoes match my dress?", "Do these earrings go with my outfit?" I understand they want and perhaps value our opinion, but we have no idea what goes with what, and we're just happy to be with you. We are lucky we can dress ourselves, let alone tell a woman what to wear. What about women's shoe collections and deciding on what shoes to wear. I have yet to find a women that has less than 30 pair of shoes. In this case I believe women realize they cannot make up their minds and just buy one of everything, this way they don't have to decide on just one pair. Instead of owing a few pairs of shoes, they have a pair for every day of the month.What about something as simple as picking out a movie to watch together. The females always have to read the description, read the reviews about the movie, when guys just look at the movie cover, if it looks good, let's watch it! Lastly, proof that women can be more complicated. A simple color psychology study reveals, that what may be simply "purple" to a man, could be grape, plum or any other fruit-like variant to a woman.source:http://blog.kissmetrics.com...So whether or not women are more complicated themselves, or simply choose to complicate a situation, in the end, males seems to have to upper hand when it comes to making decisions, whether or not it's the right decision, at least we've made one!
Women are more complicated than men

I would like argue that most women are more complicated than most men. All people are complex in general, but I think men try to simplify things as much as possible, more so than women. There are several reasons why I feel this way. Communication is first, there have been several occasions, when a women has said one thing, but she means something different altogether. Men are direct and to the point, we have no secret meaning behind our words or actions. I feel that women are testers, analyzers and observers, which can be misunderstood by men, as manipulating or just plain wacko. It seems like women want us to figure out what they mean, when sometimes its not that obvious what women are trying to communicate, which make the entire process of understanding them difficult at best.
Pastafarianism is just as good, if not better then the Abrahamic Relgions

Thank you for the detailed response. I will respond to each numerically.I would first like to define God, which applies to each Abrahamic religion: God: A being than which no greater can be conceived. I shall now respond to my opponent's arguments. 1. Is Pastafarianism as plausible as the Abrahamic religions? There are logical arguments which prove the existence of the God of Abrahamic religions, which cannot be applied to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The argument goes as such: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause2. The Universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, The Universe has a cause. Now, since The Universe encompasses all that which is material, the cause of The Universe must necessarily be immaterial. However, The Flying Spaghetti Monster is made of meatballs and pasta. So, it cannot cause The Universe. The argument which shows that the FSM cannot create The Universe is as follows: 1. The Universe has an immaterial cause2. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is material3. Therefore, The Flying Spaghetti Monster is not the cause of The Universe. Now, The Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster states clearly that The FSM created The Universe:I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. -Bobby HendersonTherefore, their beliefs are illogical, and therefore Pastafarianism is not only implausible but impossible. 2. Is the Abrahamic God immoral? My opponent has not shown how any of these acts are immoral. Additionally, my opponent gives no good reasons for why the laws of The Torah still apply. I shall answer each verse. 2 Timothy 3:16 This verse says that all scripture is God breathed and can be used for instruction. Well, this also includes the instruction to not be under the law. (Romans 6:14) Matthew 5:17 This verse says that Jesus did not come to abolish The Law, but to fulfill it. However, the fulfillment of The Law is The New Covenant, which releases us from The Law. Therefore, The Law is not abolished, but fulfilled under a New Covenant. John 7:19This verse is actually Jesus using The Law to his advantage, as people were trying to kill him for breaking The Law. Matthew 15Verse 14 shows that he was again taking advantage of The Law. 3. Is The Abrahamic God Violent? My opponent has yet to show how these actions of this God were unjustified. Until he does, I see no reason why the lack of violence lowers the overall standard of good. I shall give him the chance to show us how it does.Keep in mind, I am not saying that any sort of suffering is good. Rather, I am asking my opponents why these events are not good. Thank You.
Pastafarianism is just as good, if not better then the Abrahamic Relgions

Definitions:Pastafarianism: the Church of the Flying Spaghetti MonsterGood: comparative goodness or badness, which can be measured in morality, plausibility, rationality, et ceteraAbrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and IslamI figured I would try this debate again, as last time my opponent caught me completely off guard. Con must be a firm believer in one of the Abrahamic religions Please support your arguments with evidence and reasoning. BoP is shared.
Would Ted Cruz be a good president

Im sorry for missing the last round but this one i will argue in. What ted cruz is he a true conservitive who stood up to congress.yes he has some extreme views but to run a country you need strong views.plus if your athiest thats why you hate ted cruz not for his other views.If he is elected president he will do a better job then trump,then washington establishment john kasic, socialist sanders, proven liar/murder clinton
If I answer all of my opponents questions, I will not contradict myself.

None needed and none could be answered anyways. "I do feel compassion and seek justice, even though it may be vaguely defined. " Justice, as defined clearly in the dictionary, clearly cannot exist if there are no moral truths to define it. Therefore, my opponent has clearly contradicted himself. Below is an objective deductive proof. 1. Justice exists (conceded by PRO). 2. Justice is "the quality of being righteous". . http://www.yourdictionary.com... 3. Righteous means "morally right". . http://www.yourdictionary.com... 4. Therefore, justice is the quality of being morally right. (Substitution Property of Equality, 2+3) 5. The quality of being morally right exists. (Substitution Property of Equality, 1+4) 6. Morally means "with respect to moral principles". . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 7. The quality of being right with respect to moral principles exists. (Substitution Property of Equality, 5+6) ------------------------------------------------------- 8. Moral truths do not exist. (Conceded by PRO) 9. Basic moral truths do not exist. (Composition and Substitution, 8) 10. Principles are "basic truths". . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 11. Moral principles do not exist. (Substitution, 9+10) ------------------------------------------------------- 12. The quality of being right with respect to moral principles exist. (From above) 13. Moral principles do not exist. (From above) (Clear contradiciton, as 12 relies on 13 to be false to be true. ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. If the resolution is negated, then vote CON. (. http://www.debate.org...) 2. The resolution is negated. (From above) 3.
If I answer all of my opponents questions, I will not contradict myself.

"If there are no moral truths, then there is no such thing as justice." That's not true at all. Just because there are no moral truths in the universe doesn't mean I'm not a human, and as a human, I can't help feeling certain moral obligations to certain things. As I said before, I'm roughly a utilitarian, and I agree in the greater good of humanity and also just generally reducing harm. I believe in justice, but not as some unconditional code that has been written down that everyone must follow. That's what I meant by saying there are no moral truths. However, I do feel compassion and seek justice, even though it may be vaguely defined. Any more questions, munchernut?
If I answer all of my opponents questions, I will not contradict myself.

*Alert!* My opponent has contradicted himself. With the two questions that he truly answered, he has contradicted himself. (1.)"After all, for an atheist like myself there are no real moral truths." "28. Religious tolerance is a form of justice." Justice is "the quality of being righteous" http://www.yourdictionary.com..., and righteousness means "morally right" http://www.yourdictionary.com.... Being morally right implies that there is something to be morally right about. If there are no moral truths, then there is no such thing as justice. So, my opponent acknowledges justice but earlier claims that it does not exist. This is a contradiction. (No further questions).
If I answer all of my opponents questions, I will not contradict myself.

Yes, thank you for not abusing this. And from now on, can I ask that you only do yes/no questions? In other words, just keep doing what you're doing. However, my answer doesn't have to be, Yes/No. Get some? Thank you for being sensible about this. As for the inappropriate definition, I'll give you an example of something I choose not to answer: "Do you wanna nugana in a juwanga?" I wouldn't be able to answer that. Here are my answers: 1. It depends (I am not a person of absolutes: I guess I am roughly a utilitarian, but most of my decisions are conditional: they all are relative to the specific situation. After all, for an atheist like myself there are no real moral truths). 2. It depends (see above for explanation) 3. Ditto 4. Ditto 5. I don't understand (that is an answer). 6. It depends 7. Ditto 8. Ditto 9. Ditto 10. I don't understand (you use a temporal verb, "did," so I don't know what you mean). 11. It depends 12. Ditto 13. Ditto 14. Ditto 15. I am unable to quantify the amount of wealth or poverty that is generated. Also, what do you mean by wealth and poverty, and for whom? 16. It depends 17. Ditto 18. Ditto 19. Ditto 20. No. 21. It depends 22. Ditto (Does religious freedom entail freedom FROM religion, as well?) 23. Ditto 24. Ditto 25. Yes 26. Define morality. 27. It depends. 28. Religious tolerance is a form of justice. 29. It depends. 30. Yes. 31. It depends. 32. Ditto 33. Ditto 34. Ditto 35. Ditto 36. Ditto 37. Ditto 38. Ditto 39. Ditto 40. Ditto 41. Ditto 42. Ditto 43. Ditto 44. Ditto 45. Define permissible. It is legally permissible, yes. That is how I will immediately interpret it. 46. It depends. 47. Ditto 48. Safety of whom? The people of the government which is orchestrating the preemptive attack? It depends on the safety of the people being attacked and the reason for attacking. It all depends, mujahideen. 49. It depends. 50. Yes. Jihhhaaaaaad.
dose the Christian God exists

Its completely fine, however, there is the fact of probability. If you shake the bag, there is lets say a 1/10000000 of a chance that everything aligns into one specific pattern. But with that argument said, the earth has been in existence for BILLIONS of years. And humans have not existed for that entirety of years. There is a chance that one out of those billions of years, occurred a production of life. Of course, this was not human life, but it was life. So the chance of humans existing taken into the chance of probability regarding the time that the earth existed, is actually probable. Now, if we could move on from this ridiculous watch debate and move forward towards how the christian god does not exist, I would be glad. Also, may I say that PRO has made no arguments for the existence of his god, but rather made an anecdote towards a stopwatch and the logistics of probability.
dose the Christian God exists

I hope you do settle this topic for yourself and find how "God" cannot be real. Also, relating to your anecdote, I would have to say that a pocketwatch and nature are two completely different things. One (stopwatch) has a definitive history which can be proven, while nature being created by god has no definitive truths. It has no credible evidence and the argument could be easily struck down due to your lack of evidence. Anyways, I look forward to debatng you! And good luck!
ayy lmaos

I assume that my opponent means aliens by ayy Imaos. The BoP is on my opponent so if they do not argue then I win. They have also forfeited so points go to Con. I'll post 1 argument in case anybody thinks that this isn't enough. Argument When we look out with our most powerful telescopes, we don't see anything.Fermi's Paradox (Where is everyone?)If Aliens visited 150 million years ago and found dinosaurs, they would have left an obelisk or some other marker, or left something in our orbit. We are alone. Accept this fact based on the evidence. In the 3 billion years that this planet has supported life, some civilization should have passed through and left something (even accidentally), yet we have nothing.