BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Free will

I will gladly accept your challenge for this debate topic. I have yet to side with either determinism or free will simply because there are variables that justify either stance. As for this debate, I will be arguing the existence of free will. I have multiple requests regarding future round material and debate rules (seeing as how you have an inadequate amount of both early on). I am requesting the following: 1) What is your definition of the 'laws of nature'? 2) What is your definition of 'free will'? 3) How does the existence of free will violate these laws of nature? 4) What is your definition of 'philosophical laws'? Debate rules requests: No name calling, generalizations, assumptions or ostentatious bigotry.
Europeans must stop the White Genocide.

"It has one of the lowest murder rates in the EU, which has in fact fallen in recent years (1) It also has a very low rate of robbery (2) Its assault and rape rates may be higher than other OECD countries, but that is more because of the methodology of the police, which takes violent crime and rape far more seriously than in other nations, and victims are encouraged to come forward. In other OECD countries, the real rates of assault and rape are similar to Swedens, the crimes just go unreported and uninvestigated (3)" None of these arguments addresses that the pure European blood in the Western world is slowly going down. Also, I said nothing about crime rates in minorities. "Also, the video is drawing a conclusion first, i.e. immigrants are bad, and then fitting the evidence around its pre-drawn conclusion. This is intellectual dishonesty, pure and simple." I never said that immigrants were bad, but immigration is bad for Europeans. The video was just trying to show that the government of Sweden fully supports not only white genocide itself, but the indoctrination of Swedes to believe in race-mixing, immigration, homosexuality, abortion, and etc. Watch this video: "The liberal aspects of modern culture are some of the best parts of western society, and we should be proud and glad that we have them." No, we should not. Tolerance of immoral groups of people leads to the nation-state and the nation as a whole becoming immoral. "What is the original culture?" It is not of Africa or Asia. It is of Europe, built by Europeans, for Europeans. Only.
Europeans must stop the White Genocide.

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; This video shows the full effect of this in Sweden: "That is not white genocide, simply a sustained rise in the standards of living and a sustained fall in the death rate of developing countries, such as China, India and various African countries. For example, since 1960, the population of India has gone from around 450 million to 1.25 billion people; and China has gone from 667 million to 1.357 billion people. This is due to advances in agricultural, medical and industrial technologies that have allowed those nations to reduce their death rates and increase their life expectancies. Likewise, the population of "white" countries have risen since 1960, just not at the same rate. The population of the UK has risen from 52 million people to 64 million, France"s has risen from 46 million to 66 million and Germany"s has risen from 73 million to 80 million. This is just a fact of development. As a state becomes more developed, its workforce prefer to have smaller families, and more women choose a career as opposed to being baby factories." Look at the rise of developing countries vs European ones. Since the European ones are more advanced, one would logically conclude that the people of the advanced countries want to STAY ADVANCED, and in order to do that, they must have more children. But, due to "modern culture," where homosexuality, abortion, and immigration are fully supported by the government and the media, brainwashing the people if you will, the people of the advanced societies don't think that having kids is necessary. Then their populations fall and they as a people fall. But China and India are strange situations. It makes no sense that they increase by more than double, while European countries increase by only around 10% http://dixienet.org... This article is advocating Southern secession, but it has a section on European genocide. "I propose that even if white people were being displaced in favour of ethnic minorities, it would not matter, since civically, the vast majority of a state"s citizens identify not as white, black or Asian, but as citizens of that country. Civically, it makes no difference, and culturally, it augments the native culture, rather than destroying it." Well, here's the problem with that argument. Once Europeans are gone, that's it. They will never come back, and the world will NEVER be the same. It would eventually matter civically. Why would a state with no Germans be called Germany? Culturally, if the original culture is not intact, then therefore it is not the original culture, obviously, so it would, in essence destroy it.
Europeans must stop the White Genocide.

First of all, we need to make it clear what genocide is. The UN states it pretty absolutely and unequivocally in Article 2 of its Convention for the Prevention and the Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. I assume you’re going to attempt to argue for C, since it would be ludicrous to argue any of the others (In my opinion it would be ludicrous to even argue C). ‘Currently, Europeans are only 8% of the world's population, Europeans being, in slang, "White people." Roughly 50 years ago, they used to be about 30%.’ That is not white genocide, simply a sustained rise in the standards of living and a sustained fall in the death rate of developing countries, such as China, India and various African countries. For example, since 1960, the population of India has gone from around 450 million to 1.25 billion people; and China has gone from 667 million to 1.357 billion people. This is due to advances in agricultural, medical and industrial technologies that have allowed those nations to reduce their death rates and increase their life expectancies. https://www.google.co.uk... Likewise, the population of ‘white’ countries have risen since 1960, just not at the same rate. The population of the UK has risen from 52 million people to 64 million, France’s has risen from 46 million to 66 million and Germany’s has risen from 73 million to 80 million. This is just a fact of development. As a state becomes more developed, its workforce prefer to have smaller families, and more women choose a career as opposed to being baby factories. https://www.google.co.uk... The white populations have not gone down, they have grown. This means that white genocide is either not happening or is happening in a very haphazard manner. I propose that even if white people were being displaced in favour of ethnic minorities, it would not matter, since civically, the vast majority of a state’s citizens identify not as white, black or Asian, but as citizens of that country. Civically, it makes no difference, and culturally, it augments the native culture, rather than destroying it.
Europeans must stop the White Genocide.

Hello. Right now, there is a White Genocide that is currently plaguing the West. Most Europeans see this, and yet they do nothing, for fear of political backlash. The governments of Europeans are doing almost nothing to halt it, save maybe Russia. Currently, Europeans are only 8% of the world's population, Europeans being, in slang, "White people." Roughly 50 years ago, they used to be about 30%. The main causes behind White Genocide are: Non-White immigration, open borders, amnesty, homosexual "marriage," abortion, and Affirmative Action. Therefore, if the European population continues to drop, I propose that European government make legislation regarding, for the sake of population increase: Legal prostitution, illegalized abortion, stricter borders, if not closed, pro-European Affirmative Action, (since Europeans are now a minority themselves,) either a ban on gay marriage or an increase in stem cell research, assuming that abortion is still legal, and polygamy, or bigamy. Con will be arguing that either: 1. Europeans are not becoming a minority. 2. Against my proposition stated above. Round 1 will consist of acceptance and opening statement. Round 2 will consist of brief arguments on all propositions. Round 3 will consist of rebuttals against the arguments from round 2. Round 4 will consist of final arguments. Round 5 will consist of final rebuttals and closing statements.
A debate on a certain controversy

"Agree. Now lets do this thing. We need to check out ANsmith's debates, captain America forfeited the last two rounds, I can not vote for him if he did not debate. But there is another guy that did quite well in my opinion. He was winning by at least 16 poi" Notice, "I can not vote for him if he did not debate." That means we aren't vote bombing. If we were, we would vote for him. "As some of you know, the_conservative has just been lo-balled by the libs. We need to vote for his debates and help him win (if you agree with his arguements, of course)." That's what started your other debate. This is simply pointing out something seen as unfair, and trying to do something about it. That's how democracies are supposed to work. "also once the voting period begins i would apreciate it if you would vote on my debate with ansmith." Also, not telling them to vote for him. It is neutral. ANSmith is seen as a liberal low baller, so people want to make sure that people who they trust can look at the debate. "f*** it vote for their debates even if you disagree lol" That is a little disturbing, but notice, right away adividiun says "dont vote unless you agree with their arguments thats un fair" To this joshanr30 says "I'm with ya." "...i just said that to get people attention." See, even the disturbing comment was a joke. "Hmmmm debates that took place over 7 months ago that i was winning lets say 31 to 28 all of a sudden.....all of a sudden im losing you know 34 to 31 and things like that. It's not that they disagree, they just did it to abuse their voting power to 'punish' me." See, vote bombing. By the liberals. That's justification. Well, I guess "the" makes it sound like all liberals are bad. So I should say "some" "It is a way to create a firm bind of conservative brotherhood. That is a noble action, I think." This is not vote bombing nor is it a voting bloc. "But there is another guy that did quite well in my opinion. He was winning by at least 16 poi[nts]" So, more evidence of liberal vote bombing. This again simply brings attention to something unfair.
A debate on a certain controversy

Okay, the exact resolution is "Patrick_Henry is being childish and counterproductive in his actions against a certain group on debate.org" This group is of course the so-called "voting block" that actually isn't a voting block. The debate in which he does this is here:http://www.debate.org... Don't forget to look at the comments. He commits libel, and calls this group a voting block, and its members "A literal band of teenagers, foolishly set in the political views without any life experience or education to back it up reinforcing each others partisan bigotry and ignorance, and clearly organizing a bloc of voters." The group is nothing like what he describes. On its website, and I could give you the URL, but all the pages are password protected, it says "To help newcomer Conservatives by giving advise and displaying proper debating. 2. To help veteran Conservatives win debates by giving him advise on topics and or how to debate that topic properly. 3. To organize a proper community of Conservatives that will help each other as well as bring more Conservatives to debate.org." It is not anything like a "voting bloc" and it is libelous and immature to label it as such. A voting bloc is defined as "a group of voters that are so motivated by a specific concern or group of concerns that it helps determine how they vote in elections." We are not doing this. In no way is it even suggested, it's not even slightly implied. In fact, the group has specifically condemned this action. The group is not a voting bloc. Don't call it one. It is only childish and counterproductive.
Abortion.

Abortion is the act of killing an unborn child. I believe abortion outside of medical needs is murder. Life begins at conception when people first have their genetic code. Everything after that is just a stage of developement. Proabortion activivist always say my body, My choice. Show me where SCIENCE says the baby is part of the mother's body. You can't do it, Can you? If you don't want a baby, Use birth control, Or be sterilized. I had my tubes removed to prevent conception, Because my meds cause birth defects. It is so wrong to commit murder.
On the Death Penalty

I contend that the death penalty is a just punishment for certain types of crimes. The reasoning for this is rooted in basic positive AND negative rights - namely the right to life, the right to defend oneself, and the right to redress of grievances for harm to oneself or one's companions. I don't think anyone contests the notion that there is a basic right to live. In order to exercise this right, we must have a right to defend that life, either by incapacitation or fatality. Furthermore, grounded in this, we must also have the right to strike back when harmed. It makes little sense to state that the right to strike back is limited to a lesser extent than we were harmed. In social contract theory, when one violates the rights of another, he negates what rights he DID have while in the contract and removes himself from those rights. However, he is still subject to the judgment and laws of the contract. Thus, society has a defensive right to exact the death penalty on those who would violate the rights of members of the society. My opponent will no doubt argue that there are various problems with the system by which capital punishment is enforced in this country. Things like convicting an innocent man or the cost of keeping an inmate alive on death row will crop up. However, I remind the reader that these are problems with the SYSTEM, not the CONCEPT. An ideal method of enforcing these punishments would be something like: Judge: "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, have you reached a Verdict?" Jury: "We have, Your Honor. We find the defendant guilty of premeditated murder and sexual assault with the death penalty approved." Judge: "Very well. Baliff?" Baliff: *Pulls out his pistol and shoots the defendant* Judge: "Case closed." Perhaps a bit crude, but certainly effective, unless you have the wrong person. This argues for better standards in capital punishment cases, not the restriction of capital punishment. I'm going to close this brief opening round with the notion that I believe that murderers, rapists, and child molesters, and ESPECIALLY anyone who combines the three is deserving of the death penalty, and that this is an acceptable solution that presents the least burden to society. AFFIRMED.
Rap Battle

Now my opponent's makin' no sense,His head is really so dense He really is goin' very insaneHis original sturdiness hasn't been maintain'd Compared to you I'm like Bruce WayneBeatin' you up so bad while you drink cocaineYou didn't even have the slightest chance,From the begining you took the wrong stanceI stabbed you with each step you tookRight in the heart with a sharp hookYou were already done when you begunThis was really no match, no fun Like Jigsaw I say it's "Game Over"Go back to your bein' a droverIt's time for you to finally accept an' loseI've set the bomb an' blown the fuse
Rap Battle

Yeah you got me, I made a few typo'sBut I could write in Wingdings and still beat you with the rhymes, broWith the way you rap, you could never ever touch my throneWith those simple one-syllable rhymes I know you got off of RhymeZoneAnd the Killing Curse is lame, it's the cheapest attackBut not even Mad-eye Moody could ever "see" me in rapYou feel like Lily holding Harry, wondering if you will liveSee I've gotten into your head - I don't need a Pensieve See I'm too cold, I could use Crucio on an angelWhile you're too soft, your Patronus would proably be a rainbowYou should have never accepted this challenge, there's way too much risk Battling me you're sure to freeze up - I feel like a BasilskCome back next year, this round was a cinch Round 3 I killed you so bad even Dexter would flinchPut a nine in front of Space King without reading your nameAnd then laugh hysterically as I squeeze it and aim
Rap Battle

Siege has a good round two but a bad round threeI bet in his pants he did peeSuch mistakes did he makeIt'll cost him the debate"Ice" does not rhyme with "ice" It will never even remotely sufficeHe goes so off topic with random babblin'It's as if he's purposefully dabblin'He's gonna lose like I predictedI'm so psychic, it's a curse I inflictedHe goes Avada Kedavra and he dies in painWhile I laugh with a mirror in hand; does he think I have no brain? You better give up next time you can postElse Ima put you in my lamb-chop roastYou claim to have flames of fireBut compared to my wizard skills you're just a flat tire
Rap Battle

That was a good effort 9space, but you're below average at mostThat last round was so friendly, I swore your name was Casper the GhostThis is a rap battle - you've gotta be as mean as can beNow call MTV as I hit you with the sweet 16You mentioned Russian Roulette, but you don't hold weapons And have Santa as your picture, yet you've got no presence You're too sweet - meanwhile by punchlines are never iceSo you'll disappear after one hit - call him Vanilla IceEvery word I spit is hot, literally I spew flamesCall Lars, change "Siege's Latets Victim" as your new nameI'm too sick, you're too plainSo I'll never lose - I feel like Jordan during the Flu Game I've got ice running through my veins, that's why I expect to winThe only thing running through your veins is estrogenYou seem pretty well known, still that isn't stopping me 'Cause really they only care 'til you lose - American soccer team
Rap Battle

Attackin' my arguments before they even beganWhat a seemingly clever game plan But you'll be flushed down the toiletAgainst me it's like playin' Russian RouletteI'm too good for the likes of you mortalsLookin' at you I give a few chortlesNo way you can beat me, noobieI scare your voice away like a banshee I'm crushin' you down like you're a bug Dustin' my shoes off on you, treatin' you like a rugFeeding you to the paper shredder You go into pieces and I eat you like cheddar This battle is over, just concedeYou won't win with your poor pleadsI'm blowing you out of the skySo just go ahead and say your goodbye
Rap Battle

I thank you for acceptin' this challenge, but you should be warned - Battlin' me, you could end up at the bottom of the sea floor For even darin' to battle Siege you're, gettin' beat more The only "space" you're the king of is at the bottom of your keyboard So if you're the space king, I'm the ruler of the galaxy My raps go from platinum to gold homie, that's alchemy 50% debate win rate, and you think that you can challenge me? Thinking that you've gotta win eventually - Gambler's Fallacy Thinking you've got a chance it's time to shatter ya dreams Beating you is cake, homie, I beat and batter emcees So trust me, I've beaten badders emcees Than this Soulja Boy fan trying to rap against me So now you're clashing with the king, you better pray you survive it I mean, even Daniel survive when he was playing with lions... But sadly you'll never get a vote with the way that you're writing So if you ever get a fan - it probably came with the lighting...
Islam is the true religion

ConclusionMy opponent has failed to fulfil his burden of proof in any way as he had abandoned his arguments made in round 1 and has forfeited round three, leaving my rebuttals to his arguments in round 2 uncontested as well. Furthermore, Pro has failed to even acknowledge my argument about Ramadan being a lethal practice in places that get sunlight for months straight. Conduct- Pro forfeitedSpelling and grammar- Pro's "wall of text" method of presenting his arguments made finding his arguments difficult and many sentences simply made no sense. More convincing arguments- I'm biased here, but I contend that my arguments were superior. Most reliable sources- Pro failed to source most of his claims and the ones he did source were not up to DDO standards both in the method of sourcing and in the sources themselves. I thank my opponent for his time and urge the voters to vote con. =)
Islam is the true religion

First Of all I do what every Muslim should do and thank you for asking me about my religion. Con mentioned I didn't source my evidences which is true. I wanted someone to reply so I can add extra information as needed. To prove god's (Allah's) existence I present you the Quran. Who was it sent upon? Prophet Muhammad (SAWS). Why was it sent? To guide the mankind. How was it sent? Through Angel Gabriel. Now ask any historians about Muhammad. They will say he didn't know how to read, how to write. So you tell me how can a person who can't read or write come up with the Quran? Noone has completed the the challenge of Allah(god) to present anything anything similar like the Quran. For 1400 years noond has completed that challenge and never will. The source is chapter 20 surah 28 Verse 49, chapter 15 surah 17 verse 88, chapter 1 surah 2 verse 23. Now if you still don't believe me ask yourself if I throw an iPhone 3G on the floor will it become iPhone 5 ( not out yet)?? They talk about the big bang theory think how did the collision create perfect round growing beautiful planets. And how did human race start? Out of monkeys? Look in the history not ONE time s monkey turned into a human lol. Even so where did monkey come from? And his parents? And his parents? Lol Allah created them. So you may ask where did Allah come from? He was always there period. You may argue how was he always there?? This is where this limited memory stops in this world. Now I ask you a question where did the Quran and the other books came from??( to people who didn't know how to read or write? Now to source my previous arguments. Reported by Ahmad an Ibn Hibban, Sahih Al- Jami Al- Saghir (4239) and Reported in Muslim Book 5 Hadith 2199. ( hadith is the sayings of Muhammad) you said anyone can count this was 1400 years ago. Next for pregnancy stages the Hadith is in Al- Bukhari and Muslim. And my friend NO technology at that time to find these stages. Allah told Muhammad and he told us. Ask any Muslim they will say the Quran has never changed. Ask any Christian or Jew they say Torah and has been changed( at least they should if they are honest) and this is only ONE matter of the matters I mentioned above. You wanna know why Muslim women cover their hair, their beauty?? Because Jesus said so in his book. Check in 1 Corithians 11: 3- 16. We Muslims believe in all prophets including Jesus. Why did Allah create us? To serve him and worship him alone with no partners. So we can't give a single month of Ramadan to fast. And while we fast the reward is 70 years of walking distance AWAY from the hellfire. So what to lose? And after sunset eat and enjoy all that you wish up to sunrise. All thanks be to Allah who has guided me and I wish the best for you. Sorry my sources aren't real websites. My first debate. And if you want more then with the will of Allah I will give you whole lectures on Islam. May peace be upon you.