BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Certain countries should require male citizens to join the army

I shall begin by presenting some of my points:-Some countries need to maintain this policy in order to maintain a decent military. This is because the population of certain countries are so low that if military service was not required, there would not be enough soldiers in the army. And in certain countries, an army is definately neccessary. In countries with a large population, it is not neccessary to require military service because the military would still be relatively big. -There are roughly 317,500,000 people in the United States, and it has a large military of about 2,475,967 people. This means that a ratio of roughly 1 in 130 people volunteer into the army. In a country like Taiwan however, with a population of 23,000,000, 1 in 130 people volunteering into the army would result in roughly 180,000 which is an incredibly small and weak army. Therefore, Taiwan enforced a policy that required men to have military service, although they recently demolished it due to the fact that they felt no threat from other nations. http://countryeconomy.com...http://www.census.gov...;http://wiki.answers.com...-The military encourages and/or forces men into fitness, therefore increasing the average fitness of the nation. Because many men do not want to be soldiers, they will choose to join the ROTC. However, every ROTC has a fitness and performance exam in which only the few best and most fit out of several boys registered are allowed to join. I live in Thailand and everyday I see Thai teenagers running, exercising, working out, so that they can be eligible for the ROTC. Those who don't pass the fitness exam will be placed in the military when they are older, where they are conditioned to fitness as well! By increasing the level of fitness in the nation, obviously the average level of health is also increased.*Alas I have come down with the flu. I will leave Con with this for now while I try to get some rest.
Certain countries should require male citizens to join the army

I believe that certain countries should requrie by law that male citizens join the army in their twenties for 2 years. Of course they will be paid for their duty. -Their time of service can be arranged to be compatible with them, as some people in their twenties go to college/university.-This excludes the disabled (mentally and/or physically)-Male citizens can evade their military duty in their twenties by joining the country's ROTC (Reserve Officers' Training Corps) when they are 15 for 3 years. This will not interfere with their education at high school. -Males can also evade military duty if they are/are studying to be a doctor, or if they are Christian/Buddhist monks.-Females are not obligated, but they are free to join the military or the ROTC if they wish._____________________________________________________________*First round is not for acceptance although it can be if my contender wishes it to be. My contender is free to state his/her opinions as to why no country should require military service from its citizens.I wish good luck to my contender and to myself because I'll need it!
Is Ebola a good thing

Ebola is a good thing, because it eliminates the weak. if your immune system is so weak that your body is literally disintegrating than we obviously don't want your terrible genes out there. it is like natural selection, we only want the strongest people to make it to the future. if the weak are around tasks will be failed and all in all the human race could be put at risk because someone is incapable of doing a designated task. That is why Ebola is a good thing.
Evolution

I a not saying that i don't believe in evolution i am saying that it is just theory and that alternatives should be considered. I mistyped Marine biology I meant to type marine architect and then put in brackets "not biology". i know for a fact that it would not be for my benefit only as there are petitions signed and debates held every day with thousands of participants voting for use of another curriculum. My opponent posted his point that being home-schooled solves the problem, it doesn't, how do i know, i was home-schooled. I was taking online courses for personal interest, also not everybody can just be home-schooled, people have to work and don't always have time to educate there children. Voters: I am not saying take out evolution, just that alternates should be provided, and that choices should be given weather or not to take the education through evolution route, think about it, would you like a choice?
Evolution

"The first course was about developing a research project. The second was about Cancer. The third was about marine biology." So, yes, you are studying Biology. Evolution is the founding theory of modern Biology. It's what takes otherwise trivial observations about living things and links them together in a way that makes sense. You simply cannot study a Biology course without encountering Evolution. If that bothers you, then you are in the wrong field. "By saying that you have to be taught evolution is saying that the education system is anti faith (not all faiths but more than just one)." If you believe that Evolution is incorrect, then you are wrong. That is a fact, just as the Earth being round is a fact. Why should the Education system promote ignorance on your account? You've set the timer for only a few hours, and I have to go to bed now. I may have to forfeit the final round. Voters, despite my having to leave, I am confident that I met my burden of proof tenfold in Round 1, and have utterly crushed my opponent without having to make a real effort. Rusty-P has provided no argument or sources, and seems to have made this debate purely to whine about his/her courses.
Evolution

"Evolution is taught as law, there is no free choice in whether or not to have evolution preached at you." Home-schooling. Problem solved. "I have just taken three online courses all of which used evolution to the extreme." Why'd you sign up for them? Also, if you're taking Biology-related courses, it's a given that they will teach you Evolution. Evolution is the foundation of modern Biology. You may as well take Cosmology whilst believing that the Sun goes around the Earth. "Evolution is theory not fact so people should stop using it as fact." I don't feel like explaining what the word "theory" means in a scientific context. You can look it up here: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.livescience.com... http://rationalwiki.org... Also, the evidence for Evolution is overwhelming, which is why scientists are no longer debating whether it is correct. You can read about that evidence here: http://evolutionfaq.com... http://humanorigins.si.edu... http://evolution.berkeley.edu... http://evolution.berkeley.edu... http://www.cracked.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.talkorigins.org... Also, just to rub it in, here's a video for you. http://www.youtube.com...
Lower the drinking age to 18

I agree with your point on the tobacco age being 18, yet I disagree because of the consequences alcohol has. Tobacco has its issues such as lung cancer and gum cancer; however, it does not impair your motor skills. For example, a person can smoke (tobacco) and drive and not be effected. Alcohol, on the other hand, impairs your motor skills to a point where a person might not be able to operate a motor vehicle.
Lower the drinking age to 18

Training with an automatic weapon is dangerous but that's why its called training so it doesn't become dangerous. There is no training for alcohol. The effects of alcohol on the body are disastrous both physically and psychologically. Alcohol is much more harmful to the body than training to use an automatic weapon. regardless of age or weight alcohol kills you from the inside. I almost positive the deaths by alcohol are much higher than the deaths due to expert training with a military weapon.
Same sex marriage should stay legal in all 50 U.S states.

SocialDemocrat, you have repeatedly ignored my points and twisted my words. Judges, his points are still as meaningless as ever and I will use this last speech to reiterate everything I have already said. 1. The Constitution does NOT specifically say that marriage is included in pursuit of happiness. If you call marriage pursuit of happiness, you might as well call the duty to defend one's beliefs pursuit of happiness as well. His argument gets us nowhere. I kinda thought my opponent would mention that Thomas Jefferson was a deist. This proves little to nothing and my quote about the United States being founded on Biblical principles still stands. In opposition to my opponent on his "Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.", I have a quote from 10 Reasons Why Homosexual "Marriage" is Harmful and Must be Opposed, "It Violates Natural Law Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law. Natural law"s most elementary precept is that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided." By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act"s purpose. Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality. Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)" I strongly urge a negative vote. It's been a pleasure debating,
Same sex marriage should stay legal in all 50 U.S states.

Basically, what my opponent is saying is that since homosexuality is natural, homosexual marriage ought to be legal. I would like to ask my opponent means when he says, "they have a right to". Do you mean that all natural things should be legal? The instinct to kill is certainly natural. Does that mean murder should be legalized? I will first explain why I disagree with SocialDemocrat's scientific explanation of homosexuality and then I will give my reasons why same-sex marriage should not be legal. I will conclude with an important question to the Affirmative. SocialDemocrat's argument looks something like this: "If bonobo monkeys can exhibit homosexual behavior, then it's natural for humans too." The fact is that homosexuality is neither natural nor moral for human beings. It holds no biological benefit for humans. According to the Bible it is morally wrong: Romans 1:2-28 "26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done." These verses are saying that homosexuality is sinful. Even if you are not a Christian, please realize that Christians view homosexuality as a sin and do not want to advocate it in any way. Now on to my second point, that same-sex marriage should not be legal. So I have shown that it's a sin. But it also is much more than a sin between two people and THIS is why it should be outlawed. The Bible is clear that people are allowed to make their own decisions even if they have consequences. Paul, when he talks about sexual immorality in 1 Corinthians 6:12 says, "'I have the right to do anything,' you say-- but not everything is beneficial." My first point is: 1. Gay marriage invokes tolerance of other people. Let's say a gay couple is getting married. They want to buy flowers from a certain flower shop. But the man who owns the flower shop doesn't support gay marriage. He doesn't want to supply them with flowers because it goes against his own, personal beliefs that he is entitled to. However, BY LAW this flower shop owner cannot turn them away. This is the difference between same-sex marriage and divorce. Other people are being obligated to support gay people against their beliefs. This is about the rights of Christians. It is unconstitutional to force someone to compromise their own beliefs or give up their job. I have evidence for all my arguments available upon the affirmative's request. My last question is: IF homosexuality was not natural, would it be right to make homosexual marriage legal?
Same sex marriage should stay legal in all 50 U.S states.

So i am arguing that homos should be allowed to be married in all 50 U.S states. I back this for the reason that, they have a right to. The reason I say this is because homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality. An article by out.com explains this about a video with scientist Bill Nye, "In the video, Nye explains homosexuality exists among all different species; Nye gives an example of how bonobo monkeys at times exhibit homosexuality, and that, as a species, "Bonobo monkeys aren't going anywhere anytime soon." The meaning to this is that, the fact that in some states and certain places homosexuals are not allowed to be married is asinine. It's like this, the reason why a homo should have a right to be married if they want to is because, if they are not allowed to, then that is a right being taken away from them in a secular country. So they should be allowed to. Really my argument is based on refuting your arguments. Since it lies on the fact that their is no secular reason to take that right away from them.
Same sex marriage should stay legal in all 50 U.S states.

I will argue that gay marriage should be outlawed in all fifty states. I will show how gay marriage laws are imposing on other people's beliefs and rights and that culture shows unfair sympathy towards gays as far as marriage laws. I will try to make no fallacies in my arguments. I will be courteous as long as you are, too. In the end, whoever best supports their argument should be the winner. The number of arguments and sources should not matter as much as their strength and impact.
Utilitarianism must recognize animal's happiness.

Con continues to play semantics avoiding the issue of the resolution. Claim: The English languages uses phrases where a concept recognizes another concept. Warrant: "How does the law recognize and deal with medical errors?"[7]. Impact: This is a scholarly peer reviewed article. The phrase uses a concept the law and the word recognize together. Since scholarly peer reviewed articles are commonly accepted as the highest from of literature, the only conclusion that can be made is that Pro is correct. The resolution stands. Con has wasted two rounds of arguments on semantics. Utilitarianism must recognize animal's happiness. Vote Pro, if only for conduct. Thanks for the debate. Links 7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Utilitarianism must recognize animal's happiness.

Pro figured that there was a high probability Con would take this approach. Pro couldn't think of a better way to phrase the resolution. Here is a similar resolution. "Full Topic Justice requires the recognition of animal rights." [2]. The same argument Con makes could be made for this resolution. Justice an inanimate concept cannot require anything. Looking at what Utilitarianism is "Though there are many varieties of the view discussed, utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good." [1]. Utilitarianism is a view. View " : an opinion or way of thinking about something : the things that can be seen from a particular place : a picture of a place " [3]. Using the first definition, an opinion or way of thinking about something. The view of Utilitarianism must recognize animal's happiness. Now here's the question can an opinion recognize animal rights? Opinion "a belief, judgment, or way of thinking about something : what someone thinks about a particular thing" [4]. Pro contends that an opinion or a way of thinking can recognize animal rights. Now Con could make the argument that a person can only recognize animal rights, and an opinion can only reflect a person's recognition of animal rights. Since an opinion is an inanimate concept and concepts cannot recognize anything. Which would mean the correct resolution would be Utilitarianism must reflect human's recognition of animal's happiness. Since a mirror cannot recognize anything, but can reflect. Either way this is all semantics. " As between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator." [5]. From this above quote you can see the phrase utilitarianism requires. Obviously an inanimate concept cannot require anything. Yet, this is the way the language is written. Thus Con's argument is flawed. All mammals are sentient and capable of feeling both unhappiness in the form of pain and happiness. "Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.""[6]. Therefore, utilitarianism must recognize animal's happiness. Links 2. http://www.debate.org... 3. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 4. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 5. http://www.utilitarianism.com... 6. http://www.livescience.com...
Utilitarianism must recognize animal's happiness.

Recognize: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Identify (someone or something) from having encountered them before; know againI ask you, audience, how is it that an inanimate concept such as utilitarianism can do such a thing as recognize?Utilitarianism is an abstract concept [http://www.thefreedictionary.com...] in the form of a morality-oriented philosophy but can such a thing think, let alone recognize?Utilitarianism has no memory storage, no senses and thus no way to recall, identify or 'know again' hence this resolution is false as if it must do something that it can't do then whatever has caused the need to do it has successfully killed it except that it can't die so this entire resolution is pointless and impossible.
Utilitarianism must recognize animal's happiness.

Utilitarianism "Though there are many varieties of the view discussed, utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good. There are many ways to spell out this general claim. One thing to note is that the theory is a form of consequentialism: the right action is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced." [1]. Resolution: Utilitarianism must recognize animal's happiness. Links 1. http://plato.stanford.edu...
Extremism Cost Conservatives the U.S. Presidency

Obama Would Have Won AnywayThe Real Clear Politics Average showed that only election day President Obama had a 2.8% lead in his approval ratings the day before the election. He had 50% in the RCP average while his disapproval was 47.2%. On election day, Obama won 50.9% of the popular vote while Romney had 47.3% so the approval poll was very accurate. [1]This concludes that nothing could have led Romney to win the general election. The first debate did not do it (which was all about the economy), which means nothing could have helped Romney win. Many Americans See the Economy ImprovingThe first debate on the economy did not make Romney win. All it did was give him a boost in the polls which did little to change the showing. Obama still won the five key battleground states of Colorado, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin (Paul Ryan's home state) and New Hampshire. The only real battleground state left would be North Carolina which went for Romney. According to the Gallup poll, the overwhelming majority of the people did focus on the economy. This would be 72% in October. In November, it was 64%. This has proved that people less fear the economic problems because President Obama was able to convince them that the economy was improving. In addition, 26% in October thought of unemployment and jobs as being a huge issue. That dropped to 20%. Please remember unemployment dropped to which helped the president. More people having jobs meant more people convinced the economy was improving. [2]Radical Issues Had No EffectAccording to Gallup, only 1% of the people cared about abortion and less than 1% cared about gay marriage as a major issue. Banning both these things completely could be considered radical by some and yet have no effect on how they vote. [2]Also, while my opponent can consider these topics radical in this debate, not everyone might think these issues are actually radical. My opponent's own Gallup poll does not help him. In the United States, many people can wind their thoughts on abortion to pro-life or pro-choice. The Gallup poll shows that in 2012 50% of the people call themselves pro-life while 41% consider themselves pro-choice. Romney is obviously more pro-choice. [3] Most People Are DemocratsGallup ran its September poll and found that 49% of the people consider themselves Democrat, 39% Republican, and 13% are indepedents or others. This means all the Democrats needed was 1.9% to get to that 50.9% Obama won by. ConclusionI have proved there was no way for Romney to win and that is why Obama won the way he did (with an improving economy). Sources will be posted later, sorry I am very busy right now.
Extremism Cost Conservatives the U.S. Presidency

DEFINITIONS1. Extremism is NOT assumed to be a bad thing. Extremism will be defined simply as positions that are a certain distance from the norm. (We may want to discuss offline how far-#std deviations, for example. )For example, a position on abortion from either absolute would be considered "extreme," under this definition simply because *most* voters fall somewhere in between (assuming for sake of argument that polls show this to be true. )Assuming my opponent accepts this definition, it should be easier to agree on a number of positions that conservatives included in their message, defined broadly, that are far enough outside the norm (defined statistically) that we both can agree to say "yes, that is an extreme position, even if one of us agrees with it. If we get that agreement, my task will be to show these positions cost the Republican ticket the presidency. I. e. , these extreme positions resulted in the Romney/Ryan ticket getting less votes than they would have, or (and this is important) resulted in people voting for President Obama who otherwise might not have. Since there are 5 rounds, I hope we can spread preparatory discussion over rounds 2 and 3, at least. This is not intended to be a semantic debate.
Extremism Cost Conservatives the U.S. Presidency

This debate might be called "Crying Wolf Helped Conservatives Lose U.S. Presidency, 2nd Try."* Iamnotwhoiam ate my lunch in my first debate. (It may not have been more than a snack, either. I hope to make someone work for a multi-course meal this time:) First round is for acceptance. * http://www.debate.org...