BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christmas (Pro) vs Easter (Con)

In this final round I plan to give a short response to my opponents claims then give my final closing statement. 1. I agree that you get more presents on Christmas Day however like I said in my original argument most of the time people spend more money on Christmas than Easter so if your a cheapskate then Easter would be a better and easier holiday to celebrate than Christians since most of the time Easter is far more cheaper than Christmas ever is. 2. Again my opponent has committed the popularity fallacy just because more people celebrate Christmas it's not evidence that it's better it's just more traditional in the sense that families have done it throughout generations. There are more Muslims than Hindus does that make Islam any better than Hinduism? Of course not since that argument can be applied to anything that's why making arguments based on popularity is considered a fallacy. 3. When I was speaking about the week off I was talking about the time kids get off of school since they get the longest breaks and I say this because holidays are very fun for children and it can effect how society looks at holidays. When it comes to adults it's based on the workplace and city or country you live in. There are many people that have to work on Christmas and Easter so really this cannot be an argument in support of Christmas or Easter being better. I apologize if I never made that point in the last round of this debate but it's true. Many people work on Christmas and Easter. CLOSING STATEMENT So we have seen why (Pro) arguments are fundamentally flawed and none of his arguments actually show why Christmas is objectively better than Easter. I've shown you reasons why Easter can be considered better than Christmas it's all based on what people want to spend there money on and what there traditions are. I'm not trying to attack Christmas I celebrate Christmas ever year however I believe that all holidays should be treated equally what I mean is that there should never be 1 holiday that dominates all the other holidays. It makes me upset when I see Christmas decorations on sell in stores 3 months before December even starts. I believe that all holidays have significance in our lives and we should respect all of them. I hope you enjoyed reading this debate and I hope that you can come to a rational decision on who you vote for. Thank you for reading and have fun voting :)
Christmas (Pro) vs Easter (Con)

In this round, I will respond to the arguments made by my opponent in the previous round 1. You can get presents on Easter just as you can get presents on any day. However, it is not a traditional Easter custom to give presents. Secondly, Con said what's in the Easter egg is mysterious. I would disagree as most people know that Easter eggs have candy. On the other hand, people can get virtually ANYTHING on Christmas thus making it more fun and exciting. And I agree, Easter is a child's holiday. Christmas however is a holiday for EVERYONE. 2. It's not that Christmas is better because most people celebrate it. Most people celebrate Christmas because it is better than Easter. My opponent failed to understand that more people celebrating Christmas is evidence that it's better. 3. Now my opponent just started straight up lying. You DO NOT get a week off for Easter in the United States. I know this because I myself have lived in the United States my entire life and we get 2 days off for Good Friday and Easter Monday. I think my opponent is confusing Easter Break with March/Spring Break which has nothing to do with Easter. As for my opponent's argument that Christmas Break is longer because of New Year's: it's still longer regardless. Even we didn't get days off for New Year, we would still end up with more than a week days off (excluding weekends). Anyhow, it's still Christmas Break and we get many more days off for Christmas. I think I made a fair case as to why Christmas is better than Easter. I think you should vote for me because I have given substantial evidence to support my claim.
Christmas (Pro) vs Easter (Con)

This is my rebuttle to (Pro) arguments 1. You can get presents on Easter as well depending on where you celebrate it for and what the significance is too it. Kids get excited for the candy that they find and unlike Christmas you don't really know what's in the egg since it may be mysterious. What I've personally done before is get really big eggs and hide them for children and inside can be something that is useful and not just candy like a gameboy or a cheap toy that kids like. At younger ages kids play with toys more than other expensive things like Xbox one or the PS4. So Easter can be considered a child's holiday. 2. So (Pro) argument is that since more people celebrate Christmas then it's better however the (Pro) argument is an appeal to popularity fallacy Description: Using the popularity of a premise or proposition as evidence for its truthfulness. This is a fallacy which is very difficult to spot because our "common sense" tells us that if something is popular, it must be good/true/valid, but this is not so, especially in a society where clever marketing, social and political weight, and money can buy popularity. Logical Form: Everybody is doing X. Therefore, X must be the right thing to do. So (Pro) has commited a fallacy in his argument now this doesn't mean he is wrong yes there is a lot more Christmas spirit than "Easter spirit" but it doesn't make Christmas any better since it would be based on its popularity and not it objectively being better than Easter. 3. This argument is purely based on the country you live in I live in the United States and we get a whole week off for Easter (spring break) but we do get more Christmas time off but that's not because of Christians itself but because we have New Years right after Christmas so it shouldn't be considered a (Christmas holiday) rather it's more reasonable that it's (half Christmas and half New Years holiday) That is my rebuttle to (Pro) main arguments. Next round I will present a counter-rebuttle (response to opponent rebuttle) then a closing statement
Christmas (Pro) vs Easter (Con)

In this round, I will refute the arguments made by my opponent in the last round. 1. Not necessarily. Some people CHOOSE to spend lots of money on Christmas but there is obviously no compulsion. And presents are a lot better than candy because not everyone likes candy and it's usually the kids that enjoy Easter the most. However, Christmas presents are for everyone including children and adults. Most kids are more excited for Christmas anyways as it's a time of giving and receiving. As for candy, I can assure that kids get much more candy on Halloween than Easter. 2. Decorating is not a bad thing. I know a lot of people (including myself) who love setting up Christmas decorations. The whole point of decorations is to get into the holiday mood and enjoy the festive lights and ornaments. Easter doesn't give you a break from decorating because you're not decorating the whole year. On the other hand, Christmas does give you a break from having a plain and lame house and fills it with beautiful lights and decorations. 3. Again, it depends on the type of person. Some people like to play in the snow while others like to play in the sun. It's all personal preference. Besides, playing outside doesn't really have much to do with Easter. You don't need to particularly celebrate Easter to play outside during the spring. This argument could be made for any holiday that is celebrated during the spring time not just Easter. Looking forward to my opponent's response to my initial arguments.
Christmas (Pro) vs Easter (Con)

Reasons why Easter can be better that Christmas 1. Its cheaper, Christmas some people are paying hundreds if not thousands of dollars for all the presents in Easter you only need to get Easter eggs with candy in them 2. Less preparation, Christmas it takes much longer to prep than Easter that because of the decorations, Easter gives people a break on decorations since there is not as many 3. Gets people playing outside, in Christmas people are in the house because its cold however in Easter its spring so kids play outside more to get exercise The next round i will present my rebuttal to the opponents case
Christmas (Pro) vs Easter (Con)

There are 3 main reasons why Christmas is better than Easter: 1) You get presents on Christmas! Children may get candy on Easter but it's safe to say Christmas presents outweigh Easter candy by a land slide. People get very excited for the presents, white elephant gift exchange, etc during Christmas season. About children getting lots of candy on Easter, ever heard of Halloween? 2) Christmas is full of holiday spirit. Decorations, shopping, presents, you name it, when December hits, it's truly a wonderful and pleasant time for everyone. Christmas is a huge holiday prepared by some for months prior whereas Easter goes by like a quick flash. Besides, Christmas is celebrated by billions of people, Christian and non-Christian alike whereas Easter has a smaller fan club. 3) We get more days off during Christmas. During Christmas 2016 in Canada, we got 11 days off school (excluding weekends) whereas Easter is always 2 days off (excluding weekends) for Good Friday and Easter Monday. I presume it's similar in the United States and wherever else they celebrate Christmas. These are the top 3 reasons Christmas is better than Easter.
Pronunciation

You will almost certainly lose this debate should you chose to accept. My opponent must pronounce the word I will choose in round two and provide a link to a video or sound file of them pronouncing the word. It must be their own. If my opponent pronounces the word correctly, they will win all seven points. If they forfeit, do not link to a video or sound file of their own originality, or do not pronounce the word correctly, then I will win the debate. I am warning you, you will almost certainly lose.
Free Market Capitalism is Overall a Better System Than Socialism.

So, I am here to debate why I think capitalism is, overall, a better system than socialism. To begin with I will explain why it is a fairer system. Socialism is unfair because it encourages taxes, which are unfair. When I go out and work for hours and collect my wage at the end of the month, who is entitled to this money? Me or the government? I know my answer, me. A common argument for taxes would be "what would happen to the unable to work and the disabled and the elderly?" Well I'll start with the unable to work and disabled: These would be cared for much like they are today, through charity, not forced charity through taxes but optional charity. Next is the elderly: In a free market economy pensioners would have been paying optionally into a pension fund when they were at work, and then this would be payed back to them in weekly payments by a pension company. If they outlived their pension fund or didn't have the money to pay into a pension fund, they would rely on charitable accosiations like food banks and well, charities. An example i also like to use is something i have already posted in another poll or something. If i came to your house one day and told you that you had to give me a load of cash from your latest pay salary or I would lock you in a cage and threaten you with guns if you don't comply. But i tell you that i may come back and give you some of it back would you say that is fair? I certainly wouldn't. Is this really any different to what government is saying to you when they collect their taxes? Wouldn't it be better if rather than people being forced to look after the less fortunate through taxes, they just did it from the kindness of their hearts, and don't say how people aren't generous because that simply isn't true, people are naturally generous, and with the extra money people would be bringing in hey would have deeper pockets and more money available to give to charity to support the less fortunate. Anyway I will keep the first part short, this debating is in good faith and its nothing personal.
Libertarians are the Sh*t!!!

I agree with most of the libertarian agenda, but one step of the platform has always turned me away. Step 2: End Prohibition. The Legalization of Drugs would not solve nearly as many problems as it would create. During Prohibition, Al Capone killed what, maybe 100 people? How many alcohol related deaths occur in the US every hour? Way more. Thieves steal because they are thieves, not because they are addicted to drugs. Mostly one criminal behavior leads to others. How do you think the crime rate will go when drugs are readily available and cheap for any kid to get addicted. Domestic violence, theft, and murder will all increase. The government resources spent to stop the tide of illegal drugs is holding back what would envelop and destroy this country if allowed to spread unfettered. Alcoholism and its effects cost this country more lives and more money than an enforcement ban would ever have. Let's not throw gas on the fire by legalizing more addictive and potent substances. Libertarians are (almost) the Sh*t.
Feminism: Equality of the Sexes

Firstly, I would like to state that every movement is flawed, because humans are flawed- no movement on Earth is perfect. I am arguing that the overall effect that feminism has globally is positive, despite those who identify as feminists, but who are truly NOT feminists. People who identify as feminists but, for the purposes of this argument, are in fact NOT feminists include: -people who say women are better than men -people who advocate and support women of only certain ethnicities (for example, if people only support white women as opposed to other women, these "feminists" are not in fact feminists- because feminism supports ALL women) -people who say women should be treated differently than men -women who shame other women, whether it is for their clothing, actions, or religious beliefs (for example, if a woman from a Western culture tries to restrict Muslim women from wearing their hijabs, because they believe the veil is oppressive, that Western woman is NOT a feminist) I am arguing for the current definition of feminism, not what feminism was decades ago. Now, today, women are being denied access to education, women are being sold as sex slaves, and young girls are being shamed for what they choose to wear to school. Please keep this in mind when you reply to my argument. Any mention of a "feminist" as defined above (someone who claims to be a feminist but by the real definition, is in fact NOT a feminist) will not be a response to my argument. The most untapped resource on this Earth is the woman. She has, for eons, been restricted and oppressed in varying degrees. Yes, the woman that is denied the right to vote and to drive is oppressed on a higher level than the girl sent home for wearing yoga pants. However, this does not diminish the suffering of anyone who is treated differently because of their sex. I would like to present to you a true feminist organization, the National Organization for Women (U.S.). This organization advocates for LGBTQ rights, and advocates for the end of domestic violence. This organization, IN ITS CURRENT FORM, is a true example of the beneficial effects of feminism. Finally, I would like to state that a "victim mentality" is not what I support. Many men treat women with respect and dignity. Women, in most first-world countries, enjoy varying degrees of almost-equality with their male counterparts. But it is important to recognize the damage of thousands of years, and the damage that is still taking place today. This is not an argument on the topic of male-female interaction. This is an argument for feminism, the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
Feminism: Equality of the Sexes

There seem to be many people who would like to argue against feminism. The definition of feminism is believing men and women are equal SOCIALLY, ECONOMICALLY, and POLITICALLY. Physically they are DIFFERENT- that is not the point of feminism. Feminism advocates for women's rights and the respect of women. Answer me this: Is feminism a positive movement for women GLOBALLY, or a negative movement that "belittles" and "threatens" men?
Are humans naturally evil (Con) or good?(Pro)

"how would humans NOW react to gladiatorial matches?"Well, different people would react in different ways. It's as I've been saying. Let me ask you a question.If humans are born evil, how to some turn out good? "The natives actions then were not evil"Not only have I successfully upheld my BOP (hummans are naturally not evil), but you've contradicted your own BOP ( humans are naturally evil).You've stated yourself that Native Americans were not evil. By Native Americans, you also mean the first humans to cross Beringia to get here, all the way back to the last Ice Age. Those were technically some of the first humans. Let me ask you another question:If the first humans, in your words, I might add, are classified as "good", then how are humans born evil? I rest my case.(A final note, my arguments would be longer If I had more time. But, with school and such, I'm kind of in a bins these days. I apologize for the inconvenience.)
Are humans naturally evil (Con) or good?(Pro)

Yes, stealing for your own people can be evil, depending on the circumstances. If you are killing/harming more than you are saving, that is selfish. The natives actions then were not evil, as the Conquistadors invaded their land and caused famines and plagues. But look throughout history, how would humans NOW react to gladiatorial matches? What about the Bushido code? What about the Spanish inquisition? All of them benefit one particular group of people in SOME way, but is the entertainment of emperors worth the death of innocent gladiators? Things CAN be morally gray, but they CAN be good or evil. It would be ethically right to kill one man for your family, but would you be a good person for slaughtering a nation for your families survival? No. The definitions you listed for good and evil coincide with mine. Harming few people for the sake of many is good, and the vice versa is evil. As for my forfeiture, apologies. I have been rather distracted lately and I lost track of the time.
Are humans naturally evil (Con) or good?(Pro)

"Look back in history and see the cruelty of our ancestors, how much more willing to kill they were."There's a problem with this.-The reason many people were "willing to kill" was for perfectly logical reasons. Native Americans only killed for what they needed. If they had to attack other tribes, it was to get resources to make sure their own tribe survives. Basically, you're saying it would be a good thing to slowly let your tribe starve to death. I don't think you'd be counted as "good" if you do that."Good is wanting to help others, evil is a willingness to harm them."Good-noun1.that which is morally right; righteousness."a mysterious balance of good and evil"Evil-e·vilG2;ēvəl/Submitadjective1.profoundly immoral and malevolentGood and evil are entirely subjective. When other people think you're evil for stealing, you're good for helping your family survive. Like I said, it is entirely thanks to perspective."Evilness is marked by a disregard for other people's happiness. This can include being selfish or flat out enjoying others' suffering."Lets hear that one more time:by a disregard for other people's happiness.Are people evil if they love their family and friends? I don't think so.A final note, this debate is probably already over based on your forfeiture.
Are humans naturally evil (Con) or good?(Pro)

Evilness is marked by a disregard for other people's happiness. This can include being selfish or flat out enjoying others' suffering. Hitler is evil because he is a white supremacist who believes anyone not like him are not people. Trump, however, is not evil, at least his political policies. His racist views are not evil as he (appears) to believe that immigrants really are harming America. He is not trying to snuff out people he believes are inferior, like Hitler. He just wants to protect his country. Whether his plans are crazy or not is another debate. I do not believe good and evil is a subjective thing. Good is wanting to help others, evil is a willingness to harm them. In my opinion, any action or belief can be classified as good, evil, or neutral. As such, humans are naturally evil, or at least more evil than good. Animals do not have a morality outside of their own families and groups. Anyone who isn't like them doesn't matter to them. How are humans different? Sure, now people can get genuine joy from helping others, but that is the influence of society. Look back in history and see the cruelty of our ancestors, how much more willing to kill they were. Notice the more primitive, simple societies they live in. Now, with more people and a bigger need for more rigid societies, we are relatively moral. We now have the ability to care for others because we are TAUGHT that. Morality actually goes against the natural order.
Are humans naturally evil (Con) or good?(Pro)

How are they born to be evil exactly? Most humans are born to follow a set of laws that protect them from being evil(you can't go up to Dragon_ and stab him for no reason, can you?). While I believe humans aren't born to be evil, they're not born to be good either. It's up for that human to decide his values/beliefs. While it wasn't right to murder millions of Jews, that was Hitler's values and beliefs. FDR's values were to help America out of Depression, saving it as a whole. Trump's is to be an egomaniac (still support him though). In conclusion, it's all about perspective.
The United States should have a death penalty.

The death penalty, i.e. capital punishment, is "execution of an offender sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law of a criminal offense." [1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...] Currently 32 states and the Federal government have a death penalty. [2. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...]. Background information on capital punishment and the ongoing national debate on the subject is given in a Wikipedia article. [3. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...] In this debate I will argue that a death penalty should be maintained as part of the U.S. system of justice, and my opponent will argue that the death penalty should be abolished. I will argue that the death penalty should be limited to use for the most heinous crimes and that suitable provisions should be made to ensure those accused are well-represented by legal counsel. My opponent will argue that the death penalty should not be an available punishment under any circumstances.The first round is for acceptance, definitions, and clarification only. The Pro case will be presented at the start of Round 2. DDO site rules apply to this debate. The first round is for acceptance only. All arguments and source citations must be made within the character limits of the debate. All words not specifically defined are defined by the ordinary dictionary definition that best fits the context. No new arguments may be made by Con in the last round of the debate, because Pro has no debate round left to rebut them. I'm looking forward to a good debate.
The Earth is spherical and the Flat Earth hypothesis is false

'we do not require gravity because our mass will cause us to fall against air resistance' - humperdink First of all, mass is not a force. The reason we fall is because of weight, which is a force caused by gravity. The imbalance in forces due to the fact that weight is a bigger force than air resistance causes us to go in the direction the force is heading. Without gravity, the upward force created by air resistance will be stronger than the absence of a downward force and therefore, we will float upwards until we exit our atmosphere. Even in a planet without an atmosphere, if there was no gravity, there will be no upward or downward forces, so we will float in one place without descending or ascending. Also, all your claims are dependent on 'may', and since the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim, where is the evidence and I require proof. So, I ask again, how would gravity work on a flat earth?