BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I'm SO Misunderstood!

(NOTE: You may want to listen to these few songs at the bottom for understandment) "I'm feeling like a photograph Life never changes, but it goes by fast And far too fast for me to catch They tell me I'm too insecure that I should believe in myself more If only it was as easy as that Sometimes I just feel like a stranger in my life And sometimes I don't feel right at all I may be lonely, but maybe I'm supposed to be 'cuz No one's there to hear me when I call... Things get complicated, so I've watched and waited For the moment I'll find someone like me I feel so underrated, some just leave me frustrated Feels like I'll never find someone like me My wings feel broken, but they work fine I guess confidence never was mine A harsh word can leave me stunned Some say I'm unique and others strange Some say I'm say I'm just living up to my name But I can't be the only one" I thought that by joining these things I would gain some respect, understanding, and friendship. Now what have I got? Silly debate arguments with no chance of me winning them, opinions and confidence crushed by people who think they're SO smart, that they know everything about the visions I have and the opinions I believe are true (I still do, BTW) and I'm currently feeling SO misunderstood here at DDO. If there's anyone out there who would like to knock some sense into me, or better yet, ACTUALLY make me feel better, please accept this debate. ""--Lyrics to the song "Someone Like Me" by Aviators: I will be waiting...for something more...:(
Nobody Can Determines Someone's Sexuality.

I used 'black and white" term doesn't mean i talk about RACE. Let's make it clear, If you read about the Kinsey Scale, u will know that sexuality is so variative. Let say we use a sliding scale analogy,when white area define as "totally straight" and black area as "totally homosexual". How about the other areas?These areas are so variative. Someone's can be defined as straight but have interest to get same sex experience. They loves to have same-sex experience because their curiousity.Eventhough, at the end they're not really attracted to get further relationship with their same-sex partner.They tend to feel comfort with opposite sex. That's my point. When somebodies judge someone else's sexuality they must be think twice to define it. We don't really know their 'real' sexuality. Only themselves that really know exactly who they are (straight,bi-sexual,gay,lesbian,asexual,etc). So i'd clarified my position as "pro". Nobody Can Determines Someone's Sexuality.Thank you. -benshine7-
Nobody Can Determines Someone's Sexuality.

I believe that no one can determines someone's real sexuality because sexuality is just unique. Sexuality is not about black and white. Let say for example,somebody who got same-sex experience probably they are still claimed themselves as straight because they just do experience or curious. It doesn't mean you are truly gay or lesbian because you don't have any chemistry while you did it. In my conclusion, sexuality is a personal thing that only known personally. So i think people must be careful when they judge somebodies as "Gay" or "Lesbian" because what they had done.
Hardcore pornography is significantly harmful to society

WARNING! This debate may contain explicit content. Reader discretion is highly advised.Definitions:Hardcore pornography: "still photography or video footage that contains explicit and intensive forms of pornography, most commonly including depictions of sexual acts such as vaginal, anal, and/ororal intercourse, etc. etc."http://en.wikipedia.org...Significantly: "In a sufficiently great or important way as to be worthy of attention" http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...By "harmful" I mean having what is generally considered to be negative effects upon society.The debate shall focus upon modern society. Also, it will be assumed that the most common form of pornography distribution is the internet (duh), so the debate will focus upon pornography distributed online.Rules/StructureNo semantics allowed. No new arguments or rebuttals from Con in round 4. Also no new arguments from Pro in round 4. Sources may be posted as a link to a google doc or cancelled debate containing the sources, in order to cut down on characters.Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Pro's opening argument/Con's rebuttalRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Conclusion
Pro should lose this debate.

I honestly don't believe the pro should lose for the reasons pro gave.Firstly:Being a troll, does not mean you are wrong.That would be an appeal to motive argument.If a racer wins a race fairly and their motivation was hitler, should they instead be given a lose?Just because you joined the debate with the intent to troll, doesn't mean you should lose, I think you should win! Second:Just because you don't belive in god doesn't mean you should lose. That is an ad hominem argument. Why the pro should win:What is the best way for pro to withold their position? Convincing us with bad arguments!!Pros arguments are extremely convincing, pro has mastered the art of debate! Pro intentionally gave insufficient arguments to support their position, which is that they should lose! I must concede to the pro for their outstanding debating skills! they have utterly convinced me! They should win!And I should lose for trying to withold a position that would lead to me losing if I were to prove it correct.
Resolved: Atheists Shouldn't Observe Religious Holidays 2

I also apologize for my last minute response. My opponent disputes that I have not been "celebrating" or "observing" religious according to my definition. This is perhaps true although I was not necessarily being totally conclusive in my illustrations of what I have done to observe or celebrate these holidays but that is not my argument. My argument refuting my opponent's is thus: I ask in my first post why I should not celebrate a religious holiday. My opponent only suggested that if I worked overtime instead of observing a holiday, It would be more advantageous to me. I refuted that by stating I was retired and thus unable to collect overtime pay from a job I do not have. I also refuted that just earning extra money would not offset the enjoyment I experience in doing some of the things others do in observance of said holidays. But the debate does not rest on what it is I have done but rather what I should not do, since I am an atheist and, as such, believe that no religious basis for these holidays exists. "Should" indicates a future action and "should not" indicates an admonition against future action, although not an absolute admonition, more of an advisory. It also presupposes a reason or reasons that, although not sufficient to forbid an action but rather to suggest not performing such action. Should: 2 —used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency <'tis commanded I should do so — Shakespeare> . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [Last example most relevant ] Thus, unless my opponent can provide me with persuasive rhetoric supporting his contention that I should not observe a religious holiday, I urge a CON vote.
Resolved: Atheists Shouldn't Observe Religious Holidays 2

Thank you for posting You started with a list of holiday traditions I mentioned that you don't participate in anyway. The fact that you don't observe in customary acceptable way (your definition from round 1) is a case for Pro, not Con witch I thought you were taking. You then proceeded to tell me about how you do enjoy Christmas music. This not relevant. I enjoy Carrie Underwood's song 'before he cheats' and yet I do not believe in condoning any such actions described in the song. The Christmas you defined in round 1 was stated as: "Christmas: 1 : a Christian feast on December 25 or among some Eastern Orthodox Christians on January 7 that commemorates the birth of Christ and is usually observed as a legal holiday." Enjoyment of music does not fulfil "Observe: 3 : to celebrate or solemnize (as a ceremony or festival) in a customary or accepted way" for this Holiday you defined. "Being an atheist does not mean I am totally mercenary or pecuniary" I suppose it does not; but the resolution regards what an atheist SHOULD do. And what one should do regardless of your belief in a deity or not is always something Logical. And Logic embraces these two concepts. "I also enjoy the feeling of..." You can justify why feelings should dictate what anyone should do, including Christians. A Well known atheist, Terry Goodkind said 'Reason can be my only sovereign' "of giving someone I cherish a gift that brings joy to that person or offering charity to someone less fortunate than I." These are nice add-on's to someone who is choosing to observe Christmas but they do not necessarily 'celebrate or solemnize' the birth of a savior by themselves. "These, to me are more profitable than asking the government for additional Social Security Benefits for not attending some customary holiday function. (Which I would not receive, anyway.)" Here is a link to rules of acquisition, vital to a culture wanting profit. http://en.wikipedia.org... So though it may seem profitable to you its contradictory to auguring profit. Also I have never herd of these SS Benefits you speak of. It does not make since for the government to pay you to not go somewhere like that. Con has failed to give a rational case for why an Anyone, let alone an atheist, celebrate a holiday. He has only spoken of being fond of music related to some holidays, which I have shown is not 'observing' by his definition I await your response.
Resolved: Atheists Shouldn't Observe Religious Holidays 2

Thank you for accepting this challenge. Although, in the past, I have been queried as to my observance of some religious holidays, I must make it clear that I have not felt compelled by anyone to either observe nor abstain from observing any religious holiday so far. But, then again, I do not carry picket signs and march in protest of them, either. My opponent has stated, "To come strait [sic] to the point [,] One should not observe any holiday...They have no logistical providing purpose for you personally...because overtime on holiday's pays a large amount compared to whatever your standard income is." To Refute: I am Retired (as I state in my profile) and have absolutely no problem eating a meal provided by somebody else and I do not intend on purchasing gifts for anyone I do not want to. As for Halloween, I have yet to have anyone come to my unlit doorway begging for candy and if someone did, I would no doubt assess their need rather than their desire to determine if I would donate anything to them. However, on the positive side, I do enjoy listening to music and find much of the traditional Christmas ("O Holy Night" is particularly beautiful) music thoroughly enjoyable, especially when sung by a choir or chorus when accompanied by a church-type organ. I may listen to this at home, on my stereo or attend a concert on Christmas Eve and it really only costs me what I feel appropriate to give. Being an atheist does not mean I am totally mercenary or pecuniary, nor does it imply that I have no taste for good music. I also enjoy the feeling of giving someone I cherish a gift that brings joy to that person or offering charity to someone less fortunate than I. These, to me are more profitable than asking the government for additional Social Security Benefits for not attending some customary holiday function. (Which I would not receive, anyway.) As you have implied, most of what is considered traditional or customary is secular and does not directly promote a spiritual message, thus would not, or at least should not raise the ire of anyone of the underlying faith to which the specific holiday is dedicated. I do wonder, though, if some Fundamentalist Christians might not take umbrage... I eagerly await my opponent's response.
Resolved: Atheists Shouldn't Observe Religious Holidays 2

Christmas is just around the corner and every year this question pops up..."why do you, an atheist, celebrate Christmas? Aren't you being a hypocrite?" So I am taking the Con and pose this debate to anyone who is willing to tell me why I should NOT observe Christmas, Easter, St. Patrick's Day, Rosh Hashanah, L. Ron Hubbard's birthday or Halloween. I will start by defining some of the terms that will be referenced: Atheist: one who believes that there is no deity http://www.merriam-webster.com... Religious: 2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances http://www.merriam-webster.com... Religious Holiday: a day specified for religious observance http://dictionary.reference.com... Observe: 3 : to celebrate or solemnize (as a ceremony or festival) in a customary or accepted way http://www.merriam-webster.com... Hypocrite: 2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings http://www.merriam-webster.com... Christmas: 1 : a Christian feast on December 25 or among some Eastern Orthodox Christians on January 7 that commemorates the birth of Christ and is usually observed as a legal holiday. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Easter: a feast that commemorates Christ's resurrection and is observed with variations of date due to different calendars on the first Sunday after the paschal full moon http://www.merriam-webster.com... St. Patrick's Day: ...an annual feast day which celebrates Saint Patrick (circa AD 385–461), the most commonly recognised of the patron saints of Ireland, and is generally celebrated on 17th of March. http://en.wikipedia.org... Rosh Hashanah: ...a Jewish holiday commonly referred to as the "Jewish New Year." http://en.wikipedia.org... L. Ron Hubbard's Birthday: The Church of Scientology recognizes March 13, the birthday of founder L. Ron Hubbard, as a religious holiday. http://altreligion.about.com... Halloween: is an annual holiday celebrated on October 31. It has roots in the Celtic festival of Samhain and the Christian holy day of All Saints, but is today largely a secular celebration. http://en.wikipedia.org... This is not to be a venue for prostelising or for discussing the merits or demerits of any belief system. Keep it clean and on point.
gay animals exist

Pro never cited his sources for his claims, so they are most likely false, and even if they were true, the burden of proof is on him to prove these claims, not me. So seeing as though his burden of proof has not been fulfilled, his argument is actually not an argument as it has not been established. Hence, Con is the only one to provide an argument. 2). Con refuted Pro's claims, so even if there were sources for his claims, it would not matter as these claims were proven by Con NOT to establish his point. 3). Pro forfeited 3 times. 4). in R2, Pro decided NOT to rebuttal my claims but to instead to act as if he has established his claims, and that they are automatically true, and was very disrespectful about it and said that I was the one not providing an argument.
gay animals exist

First off, what is there to debate? You just made claims, for example; there are no such thing as Gay animals, therefor, this is true, because I claim so. I can say whatever i like, but until I prove it- it's just claims. Secondly, you haven't proven anything, assuming of coarse that this is true, it doesn't "mean" anything. I would like for you to look at your argument a little closer here, you are saying that because certain animals show affection for those of the same gender, that they are gay. To the pure all things are pure, and to the corrupt all things are corrupt I guess, you think that these animals are gay because you cannot think of any other reason that anyone or any thing would show affection other than for sex. This is a clear indication that your mind is in the gutters. For example, a couple might hug to show affection, according to your logic, hugging is sexual. I hug my pet dog, therefor this is sexual, beastiality is natural, and therefor acceptable somehow.
gay animals exist

There are there are hundreds or even thousands of animals that are actually gay. For example. Male dolphins often break away from the females to engage in all-male orgies, apparently for fun. There are plenty of females around, yet they still engage in this, as do other sea mammals. They are not trying to dominate each other, they're pleasuring each other playfully. Sometimes they will pair up REGARDLESS of availability of females. Male giraffes sometimes show affection towards each other by intertwining their necks affectionately just as male/female couples do. Again, this is despite the availability of females. But if you really don't think this is homosexual activity, when you catch your son necking with another boy, you can relax because it's not gay, it's just him asserting dominance....
European Union should have an army .

"1 - If Eu had one army all the 27 member states would have to make one decision about the war ,they all have to support it or not . So Eu would not be divided on the subject of war and their foreign policy would be the same ." -I think you horribly miscalculate and oversimplify potential events in this case. This is precisely what I mean when I say this would erode the member nations' sovereignty: if your proposal were to be enacted, then by your own sources about half of the EU would not agree with the final policy - no matter what its decision. "So Eu would be more united and exercise more power .So EU could help more USA in war situation and this is a good thing because we could end the war more quickly . This is not just about Afghanistan and Iraq , it is more about what could happen in future ." -However many troops you or anyone else sends, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not going to end for some time. In the case of Iraq, I have already shown that our country's involvement has proven to be anything but a uniting factor for our citizens. If a country does not want to step itself into this quagmire, then that is its right. A single army, acting on behalf of the entire EU, would undoubtedly lead to more unnecessary loss of life than there exists already. It would also give the enemies you speak of an easier front to attack, much closer than the US. "2 - It is better to be prepared for any threat before it happens , than after it occurred . 'The future has a way of arriving unannounced.' - George Will So one army of Eu would react more well than if each country armies did their own thing .Because they could cooperate and plan more easily on their defence or attack .' -Fair enough, but in the here and now this idea could very well be the cause of new threats. It is simply unjustified escalation. Although your point here has a little merit, I don't think you have thought through the definite and potential consequences this would have on the world scene. Or perhaps you have and are just another imperialist hiding behind current events, counting on them to go in your favor. Anyway, thanks for the debate. Take it Easy. Britt
European Union should have an army .

First 1 - If Eu had one army all the 27 member states would have to make one decision about the war ,they all have to support it or not . So Eu would not be divided on the subject of war and their foreign policy would be the same .So Eu would be more united and exercise more power .So EU could help more USA in war situation and this is a good thing because we could end the war more quickly . This is not just about Afghanistan and Iraq , it is more about what could happen in future . 2 - It is better to be prepared for any threat before it happens , than after it occurred . "The future has a way of arriving unannounced." George Will So one army of Eu would react more well than if each country armies did their own thing .Because they could cooperate and plan more easily on their defence or attack . Milukas
European Union should have an army .

There is no need to apologize. You are Lithuanian and write better English than many of the native English-speakers on this site. It is good for any debater to be wary of using "should" too casually, so just consider that friendly advice. I am assuming that you did mean "Eu is not united on many causes about the war" and not "Eu is not united on my causes about the war" even though you didn't confirm it. However, I fail to see how creating an army would change the stances of the peoples and governments of these sovereign nations one way or the other. I am also assuming that you think that the army should contribute in a greater way in the Iraqi theatre, although my point applies to both interpretations equally. That would most certainly be this EU army's de facto justification for creation. In any case, having a single army would not change whether any particular country is "united [with the decision of use of new found military force and leadership of the EU army] about the decision they should or should not support a war." Also, have you any idea of the existing division in the US itself as to the Iraq War? Why be so eager to have the whole of Europe step into the same economically damaging and civilly divisive quicksand the US has? "They could always do a vote and see if the majority accepts the decision , like American politician do it in the Senate." -Although it is ostensibly the job of the legislature to represent the interests and feelings of citizens, this does not always happen. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... "3 - And if Eu had more military power it could help America more in the war of Afghanistan and it would be a *good* thing." -You have now added a specific moral dimension to your position. I ask for an explanation. *How/Why* is it a "good thing"? "If a country in Eu told to other countries about the secret , it would not mean that they would tell the secret to the rest of the world . :) And secondly if look for example Eastern Europe of Eu you will see that the use some old weapons look for example Lithuanian (I am from this country) army ,they use soviet type helicopters Mil Mi-8 and it is not really modern . And I can say Eastern Europe lacks military secrets." -Be that as it may, this in itself does not justify the creation of an EU army. An immediate threat from say, China, might, but nothing less. Britt
European Union should have an army .

First of all i am sorry for not posting debate resolution and for my English grammar mistakes . 1 - Eu is not united on my causes about the war . Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, United Kingdom send troops to Iraq or gave political support. http://en.wikipedia.org... But other countries of Eu protested against the war like Austria , Belgium , Croatia , France , Germany , Greece , Liechtenstein , Slovenia , Sweden , Vatican City http://en.wikipedia.org... So even if European Union has union in it's name it does not that they are united about the decision they should or should not support a war . 2 - "A single military would undermine the sovereignty of all of its member states" They could always do a vote and see if the majority accepts the decision , like American politician do it in the Senate. 3 - And if Eu had more military power it could help America more in the war of Afghanistan and it would be a good thing . 4 - If a country in Eu told to other countries about the secret , it would not mean that they would tell the secret to the rest of the world . :) And secondly if look for example Eastern Europe of Eu you will see that the use some old weapons look for example Lithuanian (i am from this country) army ,they use soviet type helicopters Mil Mi-8 and it is not really modern . And i can say Eastern Europe lacks military secrets . Back to you , Britt Milukas
European Union should have an army .

My argument is that EU (27 member states) should have one army . 1 - One army for EU would be good politically , it would make them more unite and they would exercise more power . "United we stand, divided we fall. " Aesop 2 - They would spend less money in long term , because they would produce more of the same weapons , mass production . 3 - All military secret technologies would be shared and scientist would cooperate more . "Two heads are better then one ."