BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should the United States stop sending aid to Middle Eastern governments besides Israel

You are right even though it took a tremendous amount of time we did find Osama Bin Laden and guess where? In Pakistan where they harbored the terrorist for all that time. And yes I do believe that we should help ourselves before we help these other countries because it is useless to send aid to governments that sometimes don't even have to be threatened to give aid to terrorists. When our soldiers went to Afghanistan to train the Afghan army their soldiers sold bullets to terrorists right under our noses. America is a wonderful country that is going through tough times. Our own borders aren't even locked down there are millions of illegal immigrants coming into our great country because they hear that it is the land of opportunity but their dreams are crushed when they are met with racism, organized crime, and violence. Thousands of people have lost their jobs because the immigrants are willing to work for less than minimum wage. Before you try to save someone's life you should make sure that you have the capability and right now I think that focusing our money on our own country rather than other countries is a viable option.
Should the United States stop sending aid to Middle Eastern governments besides Israel

Just because the governments of those contries are in a bad situation, it doesnt mean that they can solve every problem for themselves. Your righ,t terrorists are starting to take control of those countries. So why let them take control? To let them harm our country again? To threaten the lives of millions? To possible posses the power to put fear in EVERY american? Why are we going to stop the funding for resistance. As you may have heard,the Navy Seals recently took down Osama Bin Laden. It took a long time to find him, but we did. Funding in the middle east contributed tremenously. How can you say if we continue the funding that it is going to be a great loss, and that that money could be used to help ourselves. That means that you believe that our country should help ouselves rather than others. If you belives that our lives are any more important to those who live in the dystopia, then well my friend I am truly sorry for you. If you live in the United States, you must know that we try to ensure to never fail. Failure is never an option, especially when human lives are at stake. We need to fund these countries to prevent harbored terrorists from advancing and prevent them from taking control.
Should the United States stop sending aid to Middle Eastern governments besides Israel

I didn't say that our economy is based on drug addicts, obesity, and teen pregnancy. The economy isn't based on those things but those numbers grow higher. We also don't fund terrorists we fund governments that harbor terrorists. Those radical terrorists plant ideals in young men's heads and threaten the good governments. I have also sat down and thought about what would happen if we stopped the aid since the US went to Iraq. People also have lots of problems here too. If they are our brothers then why do hundreds of them mass at our embassy gates with intentions of violence. Our economy is just getting back on its feet and you are right most of our debt is at home which also gives another reason to focus our hard earned money here at home.
Should the United States stop sending aid to Middle Eastern governments besides Israel

Now, I do agree, terrorists are the entire reason that this country is in war. But you also must know we do not fund terrorists. We fund our money to the good and moral families that are living in the harsh environment that the terrorists set. The United States has never turned our back on someone in need. Vietnem, for instance was a war that was fought to stop the spread of communist. Though we did fail, we still gave support to those in need. By saying that our country's economy has been based of of lives in crime, teen pregnancies, and educational dropouts, that is a fallacy of hasty generalization. Ever since this country was founded, we have created laws to encourage those to not make these decisions. Those who do decide to go into a life of crime will have consequences. These laws improve the economy every minute we livr here, therefore, we are able to help others in need. Have you ever sat and thought what would happen in the middle east if we stopped helping the innocent families that are being tortured. That is, after all, is one of the major reasons we are still fighting this war. We cannot simply watch the number of casualties increase by the hundreds of thousands every month. That is immoral. We as America have made a moral obligation to assist people in need. Ever since the country created the constitution, we have promised to do everything in our power to help the ones that live in corruption, or a dystopia. Stopping the funding, means stopping the support that millions of families need. They are are allies, our brothers, our family. We will never turn our back on someone in need. As one of the major sayings in our United States Military," Leave no Man Behind Under Any Circumstances." Again, If you belive that we are sending money to the ones that are trying to destroy us, then you my friend must do your research again. Our economy is not on its knees. Yes, we are in dept, but the majority of dept is within ourselves, our own banks. Many say that all of our dept is in China. Those people would be wrong. Our economy can still deliver aid to those that need it. In this instance, our distant relatives. That is why the United States should not stop sending aid to Middle Eastern governments besides Israel
Should the United States stop sending aid to Middle Eastern governments besides Israel

Yes the United States should stop sending aid to Middle Eastern governments besides Israel. Just not that long ago a confirmed terrorist attack took place on the anniversary of 9/11. An ambassador was killed. This event took place in Yemen, a country that has been confirmed to have the highest amount of Al Queda influence. The United States has been sending over three billion dollars in aid to the Yemen government. Why are we sending billions of taxpayers dollars to the Middle East when they are killing our ambassadors and helping to shelter terrorists that seek nothing but to destroy the United States and western civilization. The United States faces problems at home on a scale never seen before. Millions of young people drop out of school each year bringing the ecomony to its knees. Obesity and teen pregnancies are even worse. Not to mention the millions of homeless people and drug addicts living a life of crime. While all of this is happening at home we are sending Americans to die for people that are completely against us. That money should be used to help those people that are having these problems as we debate about it. We should see what happens after a few years of leaving these people to solve their own problems. If nothing gets better and in fact gets worse then we will see that the effort and money was and is worth it. I am all for compassion ,but family comes first and by family I mean our own country.
God does exist

Although I believe in God, I've never participated in a debate in which I played devil's advocate and argued against God (or at least tried to show that the arguments for God were fallacious). I think there are certain weaknesses in some of the arguments for God that I have not been able to find satisfying answers to. Maybe this will be a good opportunity for me to pick your brain--to see how you will respond to what I think are weaknesses in theistic arguments. Of course you will likely bring up arguments that I don't find problematic, in which case I'll do my best to rebut them anyway. Good luck.I accept.
All humans are descendants of Adam and Eve.

In this debate, I will argue that we are NOT related to Adam and Eve and that these two people didn't even exist. I will also make a few points about how Creation is impossible and Evolution is the truth. My opponent will argue that Adam and Eve were real people and that we are related to them. My opponent will also argue that Creation is true and Evolution is not. I would like to keep religion out of this debate and I would like to have a mature, rational, reasonable, scientific, logical debate. I look forward to a debate based on fact and logic, not religious beliefs. I would like to state the debate structure:Round One: Acceptance Round Two: Main ArgumentsRound Three: Rebuttals / New ArgumentsRound Four: Further RebuttalRound Five: Final Rebuttals / Conclusion To ensure that this debate remains mature, rational, and scientific, I will implement a few basic rules we must follow: 1. Each argument must contain sources and they must be cited properly. 2. Proper spelling and grammar will be used. 3. Religious beliefs should be minimal in this debate. 4. There will be no forfeiting. 5. The debate structure must be followed. 6. Each candidate should be respectful to the other. I await my opponent's acceptance.
Pleasure and pain are all thats relevant to wellbeing

Negative Case:1. Existence is relevant to wellbeing.I hold that existence is sometimes necessary for an entity to have wellbeing. Additionally, even if it were the case that some non-existent entities had wellbeing, that would not negate the fact that there are some people who have wellbeing who also exist. I assume that if some of these people did not exist, they would not have wellbeing.2. Fitness is relevant to wellbeing.On a more concrete note, fitness also contributes significantly to wellbeing. A person who weighs 1,000 pounds would be a burden on society. If every human weighed 1,000 pounds, we would be less mobile and less healthy. Regardless of the levels of dopamine in our brains, our lives would probably be significantly shorter than they are right now.[1]3. Longevity is also relevant to wellbeing.A society which lasts for ten years would, in almost all circumstances, release more dopamine than that same society if it were only to last one year. Basically speaking, a society which lasts longer could give its individuals more opportunities to be comfortable, happy, or healthy, or the reverse.My opponent might then say that these elements also relate to pleasure or pain. But it is not necessary for me to show something unrelated to pleasure and pain that is relevant to wellbeing, just that something in itself is relevant to wellbeing. Existence is relevant towards wellbeing regardless of pain and pleasure. Fitness is relevant toward wellbeing regardless of pain or pleasure. Longevity is relevant regardless of pain or pleasure. There are many other examples that I could bring up, such as our perceptions and so forth. The resolution is very hard to affirm even if it is true.Rebuttals:“We can say money is better than reading cartoons because we work out the money will produce more pleasure than cartoons. However, this cannot be done for intrinsic goods.”We usually cannot work out whether money or comic books will produce more pleasure because we do not know the future. In most cases, we cannot even scientifically examine our own amounts of pleasure. It could be the case that our nerve endings will fail us tomorrow and then being tortured would be pleasurable, not painful. So I find it especially hard to believe that we can objectively measure material goods, even for just one person. “More generally there is no need to postulate that anything more than PAP is relevant to wellbeing. I believe that any other thing we may see as intrinsically good can be explained in terms of PAP and therefore as Ockham's razor says, we should choose the simplest argument.”The ‘no-need’ argument does not disprove or prove anything. I could say that in reverse, there is no need to postulate that pain and pleasure are the only things relevant toward wellbeing. Similarly, there is no need to know that 2+2=4. Sources: [1] http://www.nih.gov...
Pleasure and pain are all thats relevant to wellbeing

Thanks for accepting my challenge. Just want to point out before I give my argument that you have to prove that at least one thing matters as well as pleasure and pain. But it has to matter intrinsically (in itself) to wellbeing rather than instrumentally (like how money is instrumentally good for wellbeing because it can give you pleasurable experiences). Right here we go. This argument will show that if anything other than pleasure and pain (I will abbreviate this to PAP for ease) contributes to wellbeing this creates a problem. One can explain why instrumental goods (e.g. money) are good because we can say they relate to PAP. This allows us to compare two such instrumental goods. We can say money is better than reading cartoons because we work out the money will produce more pleasure than cartoons. However, this cannot be done for intrinsic goods. You may think liberty is intrinsically good as well as PAP. However, as the only link between liberty and PAP is that they contribute to wellbeing we cannot compare them. We cannot make life decisions as we do not know whether we should choose, for example, a pleasurable life with little freedom or a hard life of freedom. Comparing pleasure with liberty is like comparing the weight of a pen to the length of a piece of paper. More generally there is no need to postulate that anything more than PAP is relevant to wellbeing. I believe that any other thing we may see as intrinsically good can be explained in terms of PAP and therefore as Ockham's razor says, we should choose the simplest argument. What are your thoughts?
Pleasure and pain are all thats relevant to wellbeing

Thank you, JBphilo. To win this debate, all I need to do is show one thing aside from pain and pleasure that is relevant to well being. I will use the google definition of this term. Well being - The state of being comfortable healthy or happy.[1] The BOP is on my opponent, so I will refrain from making any arguments right now. Sources: [1] https://www.google.com...
you have the last 100 dollars left in the world.What would you do.

you have ONLY 100 dollars left . 100 dollars ,you would try to have savings with that.....i mean that's the last 100 dollars you could ever have.......not try to pursue your dreams or have a last cheerful moment with frinds or something like that...if I would have been in the position i would have done something memorabe , something i could never forget.
The "Slippery Slope" argument used in gay marriage debate is invalid

My closing thoughts: I understand how my opponent wants to argue his side of the debate. He argues this: 1 -There are good reasons why gay marriage should be accepted. 2 - There are good reasons why (polygamy, incest, pedophilia, bestiality) should not be accepted. 3 - No one should draw any correlations between homosexuality and (polygamy, incest, pedophilia, bestiality) because there aren't any and if someone thinks that there are correlations then they are just mistaken. The problem with the points of this argument is that the first two have nothing to do with this debate and the last one simply isn't correct. It doesn't matter that my opponent wants to classify homosexuality as an "orientation" and not a sexual behavior. The American Psychiatric Association, until 1975, classified homosexuality as a mental disorder. Definitions change. My opponent would like to change the definition of marriage. The definition of marriage for the vast majority of people throughout the world, throughout history has been one man-one woman. This definition has nothing to do with "gender preference" or "orientation." My opponent would like to change the definition of marriage to be inclusive of "gender preference" or "orientation." Why? Because he believes that "gender preference" is a legitimate basis for granting legal standing. In other words, my opponent believes that it is perfectly reasonable to grant legal standing to someone based on how they become sexually aroused. Now, once the definition of marriage is changed from a traditional, static and concrete definition of one-man-one-woman to become contingent on sexual arousal, then the camel's nose is under the tent to expand the definition in ways that have unintended consequences. It is very clear that there are very reasonable and logical reasons to expect that the acceptance of gay marriage would be used as a slippery slope to gain acceptance for any number of sexual preferences. The bottom line here is whether or not there is logical reason to believe that gay marriage would be a slippery slope. The answer is in this: would changing the definition of marriage make it more likely or less likely for the definition of marriage to be changed again in the future? The answer must be more likely. I appreciate my opponent's civil approach to debate. I thank the reader for their time. Finally, I leave this debate in the hands of those who will judge.
The "Slippery Slope" argument used in gay marriage debate is invalid

I will now rebut his arguments in round three: FIRST REBUTTAL: 1. "They are all explicitly of a sexual nature" -Polygamy, Incest, Pedophilia and Bestiality are all SPECIFIC instances of a sexual nature and are in no way relevant to gender preference, which by definition is: "orientation". 2. "They are all, by a large segment of American society, as aberrant (deviation from what is normal or desirable). " -A statement such as this only supports my claim that my opponent can only back up his correlations through social stigma. Would it just so happen that a large segment of American society has not analyzed what makes these correlations invalid, as I have consistently addressed? SECOND REBUTTAL: Let us review the statement I had made that my opponent feels has nothing to do with this debate: "My task is to examine why gay marriage is most commendable to be included over a marriage involving polygamy, incest, bestiality and pedophilia. " My opponent's comment: "An exploration of the merits of gay marriage vs. polygamy, incest, bestiality and pedophilia might be interesting but it is not the subject of this debate. " Merits: Qualities of being worthy or deserving. How does my opponent expect me to defend gay marriage against the "slippery slope" argument without exploring it's merits? Though merits might not be the subject of this debate, they are the key to support my position. I've already done this by stating that homosexuality is a sexual orientation and not a behavior such as polygamy, incest, bestiality and pedophilia. My opponent believes that I have compounded my own claims through the instance of a bisexual man/woman marrying one member of each sex (polygamy). This is completely false. Being bisexual does not suggest that that person would want to have relations with one person of each sex at the same time, that would be the definition of a polygamist. A bisexual simply has sexual attraction for both males and females. To say a bisexual will want to marry more than one person because he/she has a wider span of sexual preference, would be no different then saying a heterosexual man would want to marry more than one woman because he is attracted to more than one woman. (For more on polygamy, see round one). Now my opponents last argument: Who is to say that pedophilia and bestiality are merely "behaviors" and not also "orientations? " Is it not possible that one might never actually have sex with a child (animal) but yet still only experience sexual desire for children (animals)? Where might this lead? -These people may not be behaving like pedophiles or animal lovers, but neither are they experiencing sexual orientation, they are merely desiring a sexual behavior. Sexual orientation is strictly based on gender preference, any proceeding preferences would not fit the same definition. Look forward to my opponents final arguments in round four.
The "Slippery Slope" argument used in gay marriage debate is invalid

I am glad for the opportunity to continue this discussion and will respond to my opponent's latest comments with the following three thoughts: FIRST My opponent asks for a correlation between homosexuality and the potential conditions that he stated in his thesis, namely polygamy, incest, pedophilia and bestiality. I have given two very clear correlations which I will restate here: 1. They are all explicitly of a sexual nature 2. They are all regarded, by a large segment of American society, as aberrant (deviating from what is normal or desirable). To dispute these correlations is merely obstinate. SECOND My opponent states that it is his "task is to examine why gay marriage is most commendable to be included over a marriage involving polygamy, incest, bestiality and pedophilia." This has nothing to do with this debate. The debate is about whether there are logical reasons to hold the "slippery slope argument" against gay marriage. An exploration of the merits of gay marriage vs. polygamy, incest, bestiality and pedophilia might be interesting but it is not the subject of this debate. THIRD My opponent again draws distinction between "sexual behavior" and "sexual orientation." Observe the following quote: "I believe the definition of marriage should not be changed to include anything that promotes a particular sexual behavior. I have already proven that homosexuality (such as heterosexuality and bisexuality) is not a sexual behavior, but a sexual orientation. Would my opponent be able to discover a sexual orientation other than heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality? If not, how could marriage ever change its definition again?" My opponent seems to want to justify gay marriage on grounds that homosexuality is an orientation and not a behavior. But notice that he has interjected "bisexuality" into the mix as an orientation. He asks how the definition of marriage might change if there are no other orientations but hetero, homo and bi-sexuality. My opponent has just compounded his own difficulties. (!) Let's explore the implications of the "orientation" of bisexuality and the potential changing of marriage's definition. A woman with a bisexual orientation might desire to be married to both a man and a woman which would then change the definition of marriage to include POLYGAMY. Remember, if we are only dealing with "orientation" and not "behavior" then on what grounds could my opponent deny our hypothetical bi friend the right to have a fulfilling marriage to the heterosexual man and homosexual woman of her desires? We have, in my opponent's own terms, clear, logical justification for slippery slope. But let's go a step further. Who is to say that pedophilia and bestiality are merely "behaviors" and not also "orientations?" Is it not possible that one might never actually have sex with a child (animal) but yet still only experience sexual desire for children (animals)? Where might this lead? I rest, waiting for my opponent's closing thoughts.