BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Universal Brotherhood Is More Important Than Patriotism

In my opinion both are important but to think about universal brotherhood we need to have patriotism first. It's like 12th exams are more important than 10th, but without giving 10th examination you can't think of 12th examination. If a person don't have feeling of it's own motherland than how he can think for other's. So first we need to have patriotism then we can think of universal brotherhood.
Capitalism has FAILED the bottom 50%

You're a meanspirited person, everyone in here seems to be. It's a shame that people like you think it's ok to TRAMPLE on other people's feelings. This is NOT a UFC, MMA fight, and in fact those should be ILLEGAL, and it's SICK that people ENJOY bringing other people pain and WATCHING other people in pain and NOT Offering any assistance. You think the last ONE sentence of your LONG winded response makes up for BASHING me REPEATED throughout your post? It DOESNT. DONT EVER debate me again. The POINT of my ENTIRE debate is that the BOTTOM FIFTY 50% are making between ZERO and 14$/hour, and NOT ONLY are they getting VERY little pay, MOST of them don't get ANY BENEFITS! No Paid Time Off, No Medical Insurance, No Dental Insurance, No 401k, No Vision Insurance, No perks, No discounts, no Retirement, No Holiday Pay, NO ANYTHING!
The God of the Old Testament is Evil.

First off, I would like to say that I agreed that the burden of proof must fall on me. I did not agree to any of my opponent's definitions. Since I have showed no fewer than twenty different examples of times in which God has committed notable atrocities, and my opponent has done nothing besides insult me and say I will burn in hell, I believe I very much did carry my burden and thus I can see no vote except one in affirmation of the topic. Also, I would like to clarify that I am not, in fact, an atheist. Just because I reject the Abrahamic God doesn't mean I don't believe in a God. I very much do believe in a God. I just don't believe in the same one you do. My opponent has failed to put forth any contentions besides insulting my intelligence. Insults are not arguments. Also, my opponent failed to understand what I meant when I defined "evil." I said it was PARTIALLY subjective. There are certain acts that no sane person would consider "good." My opponent has failed to understand any of my contentions, failed to put forth any of his own, and resorted to base insults in his attempt to rebut my argument. I will not lower myself to that level. For these reasons, I urge a vote in affirmation of the topic. The God of the Old Testament is evil.
The God of the Old Testament is Evil.

Well, since "evil" is subjective, you cannot argue God or anyone or anything is objectively evil. You just have your arbitrary preference. Given this, who cares what you think? You have not carried your burden. Sorry. You lose. BTW, when I asked you about how you find evil in a materialist universe, I was not asking about evolution, but since evil is non-material, it does not exist in the world of the atheist, assuming he is a consistent. Of course, I have never met a consistent atheist. And God will honor you wish to burn in Hell.
The God of the Old Testament is Evil.

1) The notion of "Evil" is somewhat subjective, although there are certain actions that are almost universally considered evil; genocide, for example. The subjectivity lies in those things which are not universally agreed upon, such as homosexuality. While some believe homosexuality is a "sin," I reject that notion, since sexual relations between consenting adults have no potential to hurt anyone besides those who consent to the relation in the first place. The Nonaggression Principle provides a good basis for determining whether actions violate the rights of others. 2) The evolution of morality is an interesting topic. From an evolutionary perspective, morality provides a sound basis for humankind to increase their chances of reproducing. I invite my opponent to research the science of morality, but it is far too complicated a topic to be put in the responses to cross-examination. 3) If a judge is given unlimited authority, and he sentences a child in possession of marijuana to death, then, yes, I would consider the judge evil. 4) I will respond to this question with another question: How do you know your God is real? One cannot see God, but one CAN see human suffering. Would you call the Holocaust evil? I assume so. So then how is killing the Amalekites any different? My vision of evil is true because we can SEE the horrors caused by genocide, famine, and plagues. One cannot SEE a benevolent God. 5) I am one to stand in judgement of God because I would rather risk burning in hell for supporting peace, love, kindness, and freedom here on Earth than be a hateful, intolerant monster on Earth and somehow expect to go to Heaven. We can SEE Earth. We can't see God, Heaven, or Hell.
The God of the Old Testament is Evil.

1. Yes. 2. In meeting your burden of proof, prove that your understanding of "evil" is both objective, non-arbitrary and reflective of reality. Then prove it binds God. Thanks. 3. I deny the premise of your question. 4. What I believe is not relevant. 5. Moral. My turn: 1. Is "evil" an objective or subject notion? 2. How does evil, a non-material concept, exist in the world of atheistic materialism? 3. Is a judge evil for holding a criminal accountable? 4. How do you know your conception of evil is true? 5. Who are you to sit in judgment of God?
The God of the Old Testament is Evil.

As per agreed upon structure, I will ask a series of five cross-examination questions. 1) You mention in your opening argument that I am apparently "mindless." Given that I have a full-scale IQ of 162, do you still believe I am mindless? 2) You contend that I "did not even pretend to answer [your] Qs." For clarification, what particular questions have you asked so far? 3) Given that, by most moral standards, God's actions appear to be incredibly harsh and downright malevolent, such as demanding the destruction of an entire race because nearly half a millennium prior their ancestors transgressed against a God they had never agreed to follow anyway, is Yahweh a benevolent deity or a malevolent being? 4) Do you believe that the "actions of judgement" Yahweh took in the Old Testament were justified? 5) Were those actions moral or immoral? I thank my opponent for his timely and well-thought response, and I look forward to seeing his cross-examination questions. For clarification, responses to cross examination will be Round Three.
Scott Walker

Hello, hello. I decided to create this debate after the "lovely" Wisconsin governor Scott Walker has announced his run for president of the United States in 2016. This debate, however, has nothing do with his presidential bid.As a Wisconsinite myself, I have gotten a taste of what happens under Walker's "leadership", and I am very excited to begin this debate. I would like this debate to be about the new budget in Wisconsin that has been approved. Things like the new Bucks arena, traffic projects, cuts to the UW system, and new speed limits are some of many new things the Wisconsin budget has addressed.I'm taking the "Con" side, which means I think that this new budget is not good for the Wisconsin people (as proved by arguments about the budget).First round is acceptance.Second round is your main argument for any topics within the budget (as seen above).Third round is rebuttals.Fourth round is conclusion.It would be wonderful if someone actually from Wisconsin would debate me on this, although that is not a requirement. Also, remember that I'm a newbie. If I'm doing anything wrong, feel free to let me know in the comments.Sources will be simply website URLs, I don't require anything fancy. I will be doing the same, so there is no reason for voters to deduct points when I have clearly laid out how sources will be handled. Good luck!
Differences in intelligence between human races

I apologize for forfeiting my last round, unfortunately I have been rather busy and probably should never have taken this debate on in the first place. Besides, I don't really know what I'm talking about. For now, I concede the debate, everyone should vote for my opponent - however I suggest that my opponent have the same debate with reatonate - who clearly is more knowledgable on the subject and should be a more worthy opponent.
Differences in intelligence between human races

Despite that fact that my opponent has apparently forfeited round 2, I will continue to argue for my side of this debate. I established in the first round that there was a difference between brain size among the human races, now I will establish that brain size correlates with IQ. To my experience it has been proven thoroughly by Rushton, Jensen and McDaniel, that there is a clear correlation between brain size and IQ, and I don't believe that has ever been scientifically refuted by any Scientist, Anthropologist or Psychologist. Here's a few links to some of those studies that proves a correlation between brain size and IQ: http://health.dailynewscentral.com......... - this links to McDaniel's study that found a correlation between brain size and IQ, using MRI scans and IQ tests. http://en.wikipedia.org......... - this is a link to Rushton's study, where he found the same correlation. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com......... - this links to a book By Ramond Peal which yet again found the same correlation. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com......... - this links to a study conducted by Ankney and Rushton which yet again found a the same correlation.
Differences in intelligence between human races

Out of curiosity, why do you consider my side immoral? Of course a whale has a bigger brain than a human, but you have based your argument on a flawed logic. For you cannot compare the 2 brains, anatomically speaking the human brain is the most complex brain of all animals, it cannot be compared with say, a whale's brain, or any other animal brain for that matter. That would be much like comparing a calculator with a computer. For your comparison to be correct, the whale brain and the human brain would have to be identical, which they unfortunately are not, much contrary to the Negroid brain and the Caucasian brain, which in most ways aside from the size is identical. Yes Rushton's work has endured some criticism, though I fail to see how that makes any of it less valid. I don't believe we considered Darwin's work invalid simply because it endured criticism when it was released. In fact Rushton used the very same method for his work as Darwin used, a method which we know as The Scientific Method. A method that marked the upward surge of technology as it ignores personal beliefs, say, racist or religious beliefs, and only strives to find empirical truth. The criticism of Rushton does not justify and attack on the overall quality or validity of the work, it rather shows how much the work goes against common beliefs of our society, and as you mention in the beginning of your argument, I agree this is indeed a controversial subject, as the criticism of Rushton reflects. I am glad to see you bring in a new empirical study to the debate. I am in fact familiar with Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen's work in their book "IQ and the Wealth of Nations". I am little surprised you chose to base your argument on this book, as it seems to support my side of this debate. As the book, as you mentioned, draws a correlation between the average national IQ of a country and the country's wealth. In fact Lynn went on to argue, that the reason we have such inequality in the wealth of the world, is largely due to the difference in IQ and intelligence in the world. He in fact signed the "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" statement, a statement which established 25 conclusions about intelligence. Some of those conclusions being: Conclusion 8: "The bell curve for whites is centered roughly around IQ 100; the bell curve for American blacks roughly around 85; and those for different subgroups of Hispanics roughly midway between those for whites and blacks. The evidence is less definitive for exactly where above IQ 100 the bell curves for Jews and Asians are centered" Conclusion 14: "Heritability estimates range from 0.4 to 0.8 ... indicating genetics plays a bigger role than environment in creating IQ differences" I thank you for bringing in Vanhanen and Lynn's great work to support my side though.
Differences in intelligence between human races

I will not even check your statistics, I will accept at face value your claim that black people have smaller brains – because very simply brain size has little to do with intelligence. The largest brain in the animal kingdom belongs to the sperm whale, at an average of about 8kg. [1] (note that brain tissue has a density of roughly 1000 cm2 = 1 kg – thus humans have a brain of about 1.3-1.5 kg) Now I would hardly expect you to claim that a sperm whale is more intelligent than a human, however to follow the logic of your argument, a sperm whale would have a 'brain capacity' that is over 500% the 'brain capacity' of humans. Whilst 'brain capacity' is a very unclear term, I take it you mean it to be synonymous with 'intelligence', and thus I conclude that brain size is irrelevant within the context of this argument. Your reference to J. Philippe Rushton is very interesting: from what I can see he has repeatedly been accused of approaching his subject with a pre-existing racist bias [2], and other scholars have asserted that "the testing methods were in fact biased against Black Africans. They disagree with other aspects of Rushton's methodology, such as the use of non-equivalent groups in test samples" [2] Furthermore, I counter with a 2002 study by Richard Lynn & Tatu Vanhanen which argues that there is a strong positive correlation between a nation's economic wealth (in GDP) and the IQ of its citizens – therefore the lower IQ scores amongst the Sub Saharan Africans in Rushton's study are more likely a result of the economic poverty of these countries than a trait which is inherent in their black citizens. This observed lower IQ comes as a result ultimately of environmental factors, and this will form the basis for my first argument (and only argument in this round). Whilst there have also been observed differences in IQ between African Americans and White Americans, this again can be much more effectively explained through environmental upbringing than racial heredity: The fact is that, due to the history of African Americans as slaves, there is still a significant number of African Americans in low-income situations, whereas White Americans tend to be in a position of greater privilege. Therefore the observation that "there is considerable overlap between these group scores, and members of each racial group can be found at all points on the IQ spectrum" [3] is better explained by the fact that some African Americans have broken out of the constraints of relative poverty, than by passing these anomalies off as simply 'unusually intelligent for their skin colour'. In short, my argument is that in any situation you can present to me, an observed difference in IQ between racial groups can be better explained by environmental and circumstantial factors than by the explanation that some racial groups are inherently more intelligent than others. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Differences in intelligence between human races

Ladies and gentlemen. I am here to argue whether or not there is a difference between the intelligence of for instance; a person hailing from the sub-saharan Negroid race, and a person hailing from the Caucasian race. As I believe there is a genetic difference. The first and most obvious difference between the two races is the size of the brain. The size of the Negroid brain is 'only' 1,278 cmï¿½. Whereas the Caucasian brain is 1,425 cmï¿½. which means theres roughly a 16% difference in brain capacity between the two. Furthermore studies consistently find patterns reinforcing the theory that there is a difference in intelligence between the two races. For instance Philippe J. Rushton's study on race and intelligence. In this study he found the average IQ of a sub-saharan african to be at a mere 70. For those of you unfamiliar with IQ tests, I can add for comparison; that we in western society consider a person borderline retarded once the person's IQ is below 70. The average IQ of the Caucasian was placed at 100 in the same study. Which again depicts a huge difference in the intelligence between Negroids and Caucasians. The ball is in your court.
The punishment of a crime should be equivilent in severity to the crime that induced it.

I believe that the opposition misunderstood the statement I presented in the Round One argument. That equal in "severity" does not mean equal in "nature". Meaning that the worse the crime the worse the punishment, but not committing a criminals crime against that criminal. The only instance where the punishment is equal in nature to the crime is the death penalty, because death is the only punishment that is also equal in severity to the crime of murder. Whether the death penalty is moral or not is a good question, but it is a subject for another debate. A rapist should have more time in prison than a petty thief, and more restrictions after release. I most certainly do not advocate raping him as his just deserts. With the opponents consent, I am willing to drop rounds one and two in consideration for this debate and ask for voters to consider only rounds two and three. Thank you
The punishment of a crime should be equivilent in severity to the crime that induced it.

But I'll still debate you. I negate the resolution; The punishment of a crime should be equivalent in severity to the crime that induced it. To quote Mohandas Ghandi- an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind I will present contentions in favor of my negation. Contention one, It is ignorant of first term offenders. How could the pro account for the three strikes terms. How could the pro account for a couple of teenagers smoking a joint over the weekend? What would their punishment be? To smoke another Joint? And what about shoplifters? What would happen to them? Would someone go into their house and steal a candy bar? This would only undermine their punishments. The pro might argue that it would significantly reduce the number of murders, But I urge you to consider the number of murders there are compared to how many people do drugs, steal, drive drunk (but don't hurt anyone), deal drugs, partake in gang activity, yell fire in a movie theater, hack computers, and teenagers who have sex. I demand that the instigator answer how they would be solved. Otherwise, he must lose the debate. Contention two It has no uniqueness. They already treat people with a consecutive sentence, but from what I understand what the instigator is saying, he wants an eye-for –eye policy. It would severely undermine our criminal justice system. According to my opponent, just locking someone up is not severe enough. According to him, a man who assaults, rapes, performs armed robbery, or any other violent act, locking them up is not sufficient. Thus, a rapist is let off scott-free to rape again. Prison is a system that puts the idea that if you do anything bad, you will go to a "hell-on-earth". Thus deterring many criminals, I'll admit it isn't a perfect system, but it is a lovely alternative to the plan the pro gives. Contention three If the pro wins the debate and the fiat is implemented, Then, if any one innocent man is convicted, both the judge(s) and the pro have resulted in an innocent man dying who didn't deserve it. And according to his system, he must be put to death if a result were to come up. It is an endless system that cannot be checked. The pro suggests a system that is not only impossible, it's immoral too.
Gun control

On November 5, 2009, Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood Soldier Readiness center, killing 13 people and wounding 30 others. He used an FN Five-seveN semi-automatic pistol, which, according to wikipedia, is used by SWAT teams because of their effectiveness against body armor. Why would any civilian need that? Now, Mr. Hasan did happen to be in the military, but he did not receive his gun from the military. He bought it legally at a civilian gun store. What that means is that any one of us could be Nidal Hasan, and any of us could be killed or injured. Now, my full proposition is as follows: Civilians may not have access to weapons not made specifically for hunting. In order to gain access to hunting weapons, one must pass an extensive background check and be issued a permit, which shall be renewed yearly. Furthermore, guns must be in storage in urban areas, and must be visible at all times elsewhere. Obviously, we can't take guns away from the military or law enforcement. It wouldn't be very practical for our soldiers and police officers to be carrying around deer rifles. Also, I don't think it's necessary to take away hunting weapons. Even though they can be used to kill people, I do recognize that some people live in very rural areas where it would be very inconvenient to go to the supermarket every week, but they still wouldn't need a Five-seveN or anything of the like.
happiness is relative to standards and expectations

"Frequencies and wavelengths of light are objective things. All observers will measure them to be the same." Exactly my point - what does it matter that you and I call the same color by different names??? Is the shirt blue or is it azul? This experiment by Asch depends on people knowing what the others around them think. If you redo the experiment, but isolate the people, then there is absolutely no corroboration at all for this social conformity nonsense. "While attending a relative's funeral is not usually a happy event, it is possible to dissociate feelings or sadness and instead think about all the happy times you had with that relative." You are simply changing what you're thinking about. You cannot conjure happiness while thinking about the death of a relative. "How can you take evidence like that and refute it. I'll bet that the average happiness of devoted Buddhist that live in poverty is greater than wealthy Americans." I can refute it with the example I raised in my first response. If one objectively assesses happiness, the Buddhists in poverty have a much wider range of happiness available to them because they are lower on the "happiness scale." Similarly, the Americans have less happiness "available" to them. Another refutation is that if happiness is truly mind-dependent, you should be able to remove that wealthy American, and place him in poverty, and he would immediately be happy upon assuming the mindset of the impoverished. That is utter nonsense. I'm going to assume you have no refutation for my other arguments that you didn't respond do - pasted below for review by the voters. ************************************************ The brain contains native centers that are activated by sensation - I would suggest that masochism activates both pleasure and pain receptors. As you point out, evolution makes it most likely that they feel pain. They may feel pleasure as well, but by its very definition, a masochist's pleasure depends on feeling pain. Setting lower standards will not make you happy - that is simply the excuse people make for why their lives don't measure up to their original expectations. If such action is possible, I challenge you to live on the streets of Chicago with no money at all and find happiness in everything. You cannot CREATE happiness. It is objectively assessable and not mind-dependent. Belief that changing standards and expectations is an appeal to why one's life is not as good as they hoped.