BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Poverty can and should be eradicated

I believe we can {and afford} to ensure the income of every adult is over the poverty line {be it through welfare payments or something else}. I believe we can also ensure that everyone has access to adequate amounts of what is commonly viewed as the necessities of life. Food, clothing and can provide adequate long-term shelter. I don't believe the statements that some people choose to be poor or do not take personal responsibility means we can't help them out of poverty. We still have in place mechanisms to ensure they don't live in poverty and have access to food, clothing and shelter.
Poverty can and should be eradicated

I will try my best. We know that we can significantly reduce poverty because there are countries that have done it like Norway and Denmark. So I would argue that ending the relatively low amount of remaining poverty is not beyond possibility. {The money to do it is definitively there in the case of Norway. Norway has a sovereign wealth fund in the hundreds of billions that could be used to directly give every poor person in Norway enough money to have a socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions}. We know that countries like America have been able to drive the poverty rate down by a significant margin. {Take during the early days of the war on poverty}. So again I would make the argument that a country could build on that by doing things already proved by independent evaluators to be effective. Critical time-intervention to tackle homelessness, expanding the nurse-family partnership and career academies as examples. {Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy has info on these programs}. We know the sums of money to provide food is relatively affordable {for governments or business}. The cost of school meals for kids in developing countries for example is within the billions a year and not the hundreds of billions. {According to the World Food Programme}. We know there is enough food to go around according to hunger charities so it is not about there not being enough food in the world or resources of governments to pay for that food that sees people in the world going without an adequate amount of food. The argument that we have not ended poverty yet is not an argument that it can't ever be done. So for me this shows that we can/it is possible to end poverty and to ensure it does not come back. I would argue there is enough evidence to show the world would be a better place without poverty. The impact that poverty has on the bottom-line. The Centre for American Progress estimates that childhood poverty alone in the US costs about 500 billion a year. Poverty is an underlying cause of human trafficking according to the United Nations. It is the underlying cause of a significant amount of bad health outcomes in America and around the world. {The latter according to the World Health Organization}. It is a cause of low educational achievement because poor kids are less likely to do well in school because of poverty. These are just some of the problems. So I would argue this shows why it would be a good thing to eradicate poverty.
Every adult in first world countries should be vegan.

Structure1st round brief statement of position and acceptance.2nd round main argument3rd round rebuttals4th round defend your r2 argument against opponent's r3 rebuttal.Thanks for accepting this debate. I will be arguing that every adult in first world countries should be vegan. Exceptions, rare medical conditions, extraordinary circumstances, and lab grown meat. [1]Examples of extraordinary circumstances would be stuck on a desert island or in an elevator shaft.Sources1. http://prime.peta.org...
This House Believes That Jakrakan Is Truely An Immortal Being

Jakrakan's argument is clearly the most fallacious garbage that could come out of a supposed immortal. He made facetious assertions which I took down and did nothing else but asset nonsense. I urge the floor to side with the sensible side, not the illogical and bizarre side of this debate. I have negated your arguments leaving you with an unfulfilled BOP. Therefore, I have won and I urge the floor to take this into consideration.
This House Believes That Jakrakan Is Truely An Immortal Being

OK. Quite clearly you do not understand what I am saying to you. You clearly do not 'get' what I am trying to say. This is simply because you are a puny mortal trying to understand the affairs of an immortal. Obviously you wouldn't understand. I have proved that I am immortal, and have therefore cleared my BOP, only a true immortal would understand. You, however, can never truly understand.
This House Believes That Jakrakan Is Truely An Immortal Being

Jakrakan, you do not know how debating works. In the resolution, you made a claim. That you are an immortal being. I do not have to argue that you aren't, I simply have to negate any claim you make so that the resolution is false. If the resolution is proved false, then your whole argument automatically collapses and I have won. I have not said or made the assertion that you are not an immortal being in this debate, thefore I have not created any preponderance of evidence that must be met. You are the claim-maker, and in any normal debate, you have BOP. Failure to meet your BOP means your resolution is automatically debated my job is completed.As for your argument, it is the fallacy of the argument from ignorance[1]. Syllogistically, you have said."Immortality is not dying.You have not seen me die.Therefore I am immortal." With that logic, I could say:"Helping someone requires not being a bad person.You have not seen me being bad.Therefore I help people."Or even:"Destroying the planet requires not being weak.You have not seen me being weak.Therefore I can destroy the planet."I would appreciate if the floor could state in the comments which, but this is a succinct logical fallacy. It is possible to have not died yet, and be immortal. I believe this is a variant of affirming a disjunct but I will appreciate if the floor could correct me. But my point is it is a fallacious argument. It does not stand and you have not met any BOP that you are immortal. I would request that you declare when you came to be in existence and more information about how you actually exist. Else, victory for this debate now lies with me with the resolution having no case. Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org...
This House Believes That Jakrakan Is Truely An Immortal Being

I have no BOP whatsoever. This 'CJKAllstar' is clearly some mortal being you doesn't have anything better to do. I suggest he stops meddling with immortals' affairs and concentrates on his own mortal life. As for the proof that I am in fact immortal: The opposition has never seen me die, and so cannot say that I am mortal. I think that you will find the BOP is on you.
Joke Contest

My opponent has forfeited his last round due to being unable to reach a computer, So I have offered him the opportunity to post his joke in my round, VIA copy and paste. So the next Joke is my opponents joke that I have copied and pasted from the comments box below. My joke will follow my opponents joke. jakamadillo7 There once was a very rich king with a beautiful daughter, who was kind of a slut. So one day he decided to put glitter on her pussie. The next day he got her three severents together and told them to drop their pants the first man had glitter on his c0ck so the king had him him killed. The second man had glitter on his fingers. So the king also had him killed. But the third man, the third man had no visable glitter. So the king said smiling "you may marry my daughter." The third man smiled back to the king. The king then commented on his dental care saying his teeth glittered in the sun. .................... A dog walks into a butcher shop with a purse strapped around his neck. He walks up to the meat case and calmly sits there until it's his turn to be waited on. A man, who was already in the butcher shop, finished his purchase and noticed the dog. The butcher leaned over the counter and asked the dog what it wanted today. The dog put its paw on the glass case in front of the ground beef, and the butcher said, "How many pounds?" The dog barked twice, so the butcher made a package of two pounds ground beef. He then said, "Anything else?" The dog pointed to the pork chops, and the butcher said, "How many?" The dog barked four times, and the butcher made up a package of four pork chops. The dog walked around behind the counter, so the butcher could get at the purse and take out the appropriate amount of money before tying the two packages of meat around the dog's neck. The man, who had been watching all of this, decided to follow the dog. The dog walked for several blocks and then walked up to a house where it began to scratch the door to be let in. As the owner opened the door, the man called to the owner, "That's a really smart dog you have there." "He's not really all that smart," the owner replied. "This is the second time this week he forgot his key.
Joke Contest

Very good. Bloke sees an advert in a pet shop "Talking centipede "5000, He buys it, takes it home in a small box, after 30 Min's, He opens the box and says " would you like to go for a pint". The centipede doesn't answer. Raising his voice he repeats the question, still no reply. Getting angry, thinking he's been done, he shouts the question out loudly. At which the centipede sticks his head out the box, and says " I heard you the first time you sap, I'm just putting my bloody shoes on".
Joke Contest

Three men are trapped on a tropical island. They soon get captured by one of the local tribes. The tribe leader tells the three men to go around the island, while guarded, to find ten of the same fruit on the island then come back. After awhile the first man returned with coconuts, the tribe leader told him to shove all ten coconuts up his as$ and if he can't they would kill him. He regrettably began but only made it to three, so they indeed killed him. After awhile longer, the second man approaches with some tropical berries. The tribe leader told him the same thing he said to the first. So the man quickly began. The second man got to nine, then he laughed and all the berries came out so they killed him. Up in heaven the first man asked the second "You were almost there, why did you laugh?" to get the reply by the second man "I know I was almost there, but I saw the third guy coming with pineapples."
People should be allowed to legally refuse doing work for gay weddings (flowers, cakes, etc.)

My reason for my side of the debate was sparked by a particular example. I came across an ad that featured a florist's experience. She had a frequent customer who she knew to be gay and they had a good relationship and she genuinely seemed to like him. He was aware of her religious beliefs. She had arranged flowers for him before and she had taken no issue with it. He came to her shop one day and requested flowers and specifically mentioned it was for his wedding to his then partner, now husband. She said she wouldn't arrange the flowers for this event and referred him to other florists. He seemed ok with this and left. Later, she learned she was being sued by the attorney general for discrimination. As you stated, it should be acceptable for her to just refer another florist. However, she lost this case. US law currently doesn't allow businesses to do what you suggest they should be able to do. https://www.cbsnews.com... I'm not suggesting that businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Similar to the example you gave concerning Muslims and alcohol, I simply believe people should be allowed to refuse to do things that violate their religious beliefs. I think that in the cases where it simply based on sexuality, that should be considered unlawful. However, when performing the service is directly related to their beliefs, as in the cases of the Muslim and the florist, I believe they should have the right to refuse. I agree that people can use the law to justify hatred. However in some cases it used correctly. This is the purpose of the court system: to make decisions regarding the specific circumstances of each case. While we can both agree that segregated drinking fountains aren't acceptable, but a Muslim refusing to serve alcohol is, there is an area in between the two that isn't clearly defined. There is a point where religious freedom becomes hatred, and that point isn't obvious. From my view, this particular woman's actions in this particular case shouldn't be unlawful. In the example you gave of the cashier, I think they should be punished in the 1st scenario. These kinds of issues depend largely on the particular case. That's why I phrased the subject as "refuse doing work for gay weddings" not "refuse doing work for people due to them being gay (or because the customer might be gay)". It is my position that this florist's case is closer to the Muslim refusing to serve alcohol than it is to segregated drinking fountains.
People should be allowed to legally refuse doing work for gay weddings (flowers, cakes, etc.)

To clarify, I don't believe that people should be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation alone. So if a gay person wanted flowers for their home or to buy for their mother or some other reason, I don't think they should be able to discriminate. However, if the service being requested is for an event that is directly against that the florist's beliefs, then I think they should have the right to refuse, like in a gay wedding. For another example to further clarify my point, I'll use the example of someone working for Uber Eats. Let's say the driver is vegan. I think that this driver should be allowed to refuse delivering meat to people. As this person sees eating meat as morally incorrect, I don't think they should be legally required to help someone to do something they find to be morally incorrect. To some degree, this discussion gets to the heart of the issue of what is acceptable discrimination. We "discriminate" all the time as people. We do it with simple things, like choosing not to eat certain foods. We also do it with people, like when we choose who to be friends with or when we choose to end a friendship. Discriminating, at its core, is treating different things differently, and I think this should be allowed when it relates to facilitating others in taking actions you don't find to be morally acceptable.
People should be allowed to legally refuse doing work for gay weddings (flowers, cakes, etc.)

Happy to think with you today. I took a glance at some of your other arguments and am happy to say I think you're an honest debater and would be happy to debate you more if you enjoy how this goes. There's a common misconception with people that the gay wedding flowers/cake scenarios are important to people in and of themselves. Largely, they are not. If the question up for debate was "Should people be allowed to refuse doing work for gay weddings?" I would completely agree with you. They certainly should, and most people do as well. However the problem I have, and that others have as well, is that you have put "legal" into the mix. This makes it a much larger scenario. You're no longer asking about a specific situation. You're now asking a much broader question. Particularly because this was brought up in the Supreme Court, where the outcome will effect future decisions, and is made based somewhat off prior decisions. You're no longer saying "People should be allowed to refuse doing work for gay weddings." You're saying "Businesses should be legally allowed to discriminate against people based on their sexual preference." You have said you're leaving religion out of this personally, but I'll include a bit of argument against that specifically because the supreme court argument you're basing this question off of includes it, but I assure you my arguments will be towards you as well. A religious person could otherwise say "Businesses should be legally allowed to discriminate against people based on their sexual preference for religious reasons." In this though, it could easily be shortened to "discriminate against people." If they're allowed to discriminate against a group of people, no reason to limit it to just sexual preference. Because Judges have to think this way, the fact that it is a specific case of a baker discriminating does not matter. Under a legal eye, one has to read it as it will apply to future law. With those thoughts in mind, I take up my case against you. Bakers cannot refuse doing work for gay couples for their wedding simply on the basis of them being gay. If we allowed this, there would have to be a government organization specifically dedicated to deciding which businesses could discriminate an which could not. No matter how well it goes, it will always be seen as arbitrary and railed against by all. Under this law, either all discrimination has to be allowed or none will be allowed.
People should be allowed to legally refuse doing work for gay weddings (flowers, cakes, etc.)

Freedom should be allowed for citizens except in cases where exercising their freedom would limit the freedom of others. Requiring florists, etc. to arrange flowers for gay weddings when doing so violates their beliefs restricts their freedom. Thus, these people should be allowed to refuse. Disclaimer: I am not religious and my position does not originate from a religious belief. I simply believe the government shouldn't restrict people's freedom unless necessary for public safety, etc.
People should be allowed to legally refuse doing work for gay weddings (flowers, cakes, etc.)

To start, for these individuals it is much more than them having to "grit their teeth and do an unpleasant job". They believe that performing the service in this situation would be to betray the creator of the universe and the perfect being. Many of them believe all things to be equally wrong, so from their position it is on par with murder and all the rest (a position I don't share). You would be legally requiring them to violate their entire worldview and view of ethics. When weighing this result for the employee vs the customer going somewhere else, it seems apparent to me that the former is a worse result than the latter. In addition, I never claimed it was an epidemic or even one of the top issues with the world. It was simply an example of what I saw as injustice. I think there are middle grounds between our current legal situation and a non-functioning society. It seems hyberbolic to suggest if this woman had won the case then anti-gay towns would develop as a result. For example, businesses could advertise that they won't do certain types of events, similar to how hotels have smoking and non-smoking rooms or how some entire hotels are nonsmoking. This would no doubt hurt their business but that's my point: these business issues should be resolved in the world of business not the world of law. While this depends on interpretation, I would argue that religious freedom is a civil right. The Bill of Rights cover civil rights and religious freedom is one of them. I couldn't find a source that specifically excluded religious rights from civil rights. However, assuming they are separate, I think this debate and our disagreement ultimately comes down to a difference in value. I value the ability of individuals, as part of a business or otherwise, to refuse to do things they deem to be wrong, with the exception of cases of harm. The level of harm is a gray area, but this is another example of personal interpretation. You value people's right to expect service from businesses. I share this value, however, I value people's ability to legally refuse (in the cases I mentioned) over people's right to expect service. You do not. This could be the subject of another debate, but this seems to come down to a fundamental difference in value that one can't be argued out of, for both parties. We could no more talk each other out of these values than talk each other out of valuing justice, compassion, or truth.
People should be allowed to legally refuse doing work for gay weddings (flowers, cakes, etc.)

Again, on a case by case basis I'd agree with you. The law cannot be like a willow in the wind though. The vast majority of gay people would simply find another photographer or florist and not make a big deal about it, believe it or not. These examples we're discussing are the vast, vast minority of cases where gay people, for one reason or another, make a big deal about it and force the issue. Perhaps it's just for money from the legal system, which is unfortunate but that's all we can do. Businesses absolutely should not have the freedoms of individuals. You would get cases like the example I've already used and far, far worse. I can imagine hundreds of scenarios. You can't give me one good outcome on your side besides that some minority of people wouldn't have to grit their teeth and do an unpleasant job. I personally am an anti-theist. The line of work I do often has me working weddings for theists of all sorts. Birthday parties for all sorts. I grit my teeth and bear it. It tends to not be that hard. I promise I despise religion more than the vast majority of Christians despise gays, but I still have fun at these weddings. The vast majority of Christians are accepting of gays enough to where this is also not an issue. If you allow one form of discrimination from one business you allow arguments for all of them. The case you use with the wedding photographer is the strongest possible case in your favor, and there are hundreds on the other side. You have to specify that it is a service provided directly to a gay event as well. The photographer, and maybe wedding venues are the only things I see that fall into these kind of direct categories. The law is almost never this specific. I've looked and can't find anything saying it's illegal to inform the customer that you have your views and that they may be served better looking elsewhere, referring to the other business, recruiting a private contractor specifically for gay events, and if none of those work gritting your teeth and bearing it yourself. Honestly the people effected by what you say has to be the vast, vast minority. Do you have any sources showing that this is some widespread epidemic in states where discrimination laws have been expanded to include sexual preference as a protected class? All I can find are a handful. It should absolutely be allowed to refer the clients to someone else, to recruit a private contractor for the job, and to tell them that you would prefer to not take them as clients. If this is not the case I'd absolutely be with you on helping with it, but I absolutely don't see how it could be otherwise softened without it breaking. For society to function and not have anti-gay towns or anti-christian towns or anti-white towns et cetera, these laws cannot hold religious freedom of businesses over people's ability to expect services from businesses. Religious freedom is put up against the civil rights of others. Civil rights should always win, but religious freedoms should be expanded as far as possible certainly.