BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Humans are an intellectual beings.

1. Humans and emotion - As you have stated, life is not a simple game. However, that is only as it is right now; living life with emotions. If humans could control their emotions, life would be even more simple than drinking water or breathing itself. Make decisions that are best for themselves. Help others by taking care of yourself. Don't be a burden to others. Ignore any sympathy. Remember the rule "survival of the fittest". The weaks will die and that is not a bad thing. Instead of suffering through their life and end up dying miserably, they could be reborn or go to heaven or the afterlife. Nowadays humans are already taking down the environment to help themselves, let alone slaughtering animals just to further their comfort. Tigers, bears, whales, and many other animals that are not meant to be hunted to be eaten, are hunted down for decorations or unreasonable reasons. There is no sorrow or sympathy in these slaughterings. There is nothing; only the thought of living on. (and greed)2. Monies are things people use to pay for things and define how much things are worth. Rare materials are worth more so it cost more. Rare things that are hard to find cause "scarcity". If only humans get rid of the scarcity of materials needed for space exploration, whether through experimentation or obtaining from nature, the cost would be significantly lowered. 3. I still stand my point that corruption and greed are what prevented nuclear wars. Government wanting to protect their country and continue the post as the government is so that they could continue with corruption. When the country is in a poor state (after wars), there would be less things for them or it would be harder for them to corrupt. No one wants to protect human beings. Wars are going on all around the world right now and barely anyone cares. They also care for the environment to a minimal extent; they will always care for the environment as long as the environment is financially beneficial to them somehow. This, is what truly prevents nuclear wars. 4. There are bumps everywhere right now, whether it's prostitution, human trafficking, or illegal drugs. Countries are fighting with each other. There will always be a place with no sign of peace of togetherness. Let alone togetherness in the world when kids and civilians still fight with each other. There are many racists in this world; Black, Asians, or third-world countries. Conclusion - Life will be very simple if humans could control their emotions. Without emotions, humans would be able to make flawless decisions purely based on their intellect. How well they make their decisions will be fully dependant on their intellect, not being intervened by emotions. Also, advancements don't always represent intellect. Stupid people could advance too. Lastly, I would like to thanks the Pro for giving me an enjoyable debate with interesting arguments. I wish him luck for the voting period. Thanks.
Humans are an intellectual beings.

Thank you. I wish you luck too.First of all, I would like to specify intellectual beings as suggested by Piccini. Intellectual beings are beings that have a considerately high EQ and IQ compared to other beings. Also, intellectual beings would be able to solve problems head-on, whether it's as small of a problem as quarrels between individuals or as big of a problem as a global crisis like global warming. 1. Humans claim that they are an "intellectual being". However, looking back at the past, the Great War and World War II were caused from greediness and small quarrels between leaders of countries. If humans really are smart, they would have sorted out the problem peacefully and would not have any means of using forces and military armies. 2. Humans had been discovering about the universe and trying to build spaceships to go out and conquer other planets. They call this an "advanced technology" and "in-dept knowledge". In truth, what humans currently know about the universe is so little it couldn't even be compared with a pin in the ocean. 3. Humans had been destroying the nature; polluting rivers and oceans, contaminating the air, and cutting down trees. If humans really are intelligent and wise, they should know beforehand the problems they're creating for themselves; the problems that won't be fixed in time and cause a disastrous effect to the human race, like the saying "Only after the last tree has been cut down. Only after the last river has been poisoned. Only after the last fish has been caught. Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten." Furthermore, fish and other animals are being killed at an extremely rapid speed, causing species after species to go extinct. Without any prevention, mankind would be the last living race and would have nothing to eat. 4. Medical cares are improving all around the world. However, it is not good enough. Cloning had been successful in laboratories. Animals had been cloned. What about humans? Why aren't you being cloned so that your internal organs could be replaced in case of some accidents. I am looking forward to seeing your replies.
homosexuality equals a genetic disorder

homosexuality is a genetic disorder i'm not arguing it is or is not natural, cause you could argue it's the way nature made em. but if homos were functioning they way they were suppose to, they would be attracted to the opposite sex. people with down syndrome dont pretend they aren't disordered. anaology applies to homos. look at their genitals, that indicates they are suppose to mate with the opposite sex and implies be attracted.
homosexuality equals a genetic disorder

It's sad that people look at love just as other ways to have sex or so you do at least. Love is meant to feel with your heart not physically. Imagine someone who is paralyzed and cannot have sex but they fall in love with someone of the opposite gender. They can't have sex. But that doesn't mean they can't love each other. Love isn't about reproduction. People don't get together to have babies they get together because they want to be with each other. If you have a genetic disorder it can prevent you in someway. You can still have a baby just not with your partner which is okay. Your claims are based off of just saying because they can't reproduce with their partner, it's a genetic disorder. It's sickening to hear that people think as love as just another thing to have children.
homosexuality equals a genetic disorder

i'm sure there are better examples than down syndrome. here is a list of them... https://www.genome.gov... just because you dont see the disorder on their body doesn't mean their hormones and other things aren't working the way they are suppose to. also how do you respond to the fact that males have pensies and females vagina's that by design go together? and of course buttholes aren meant for excretion and not sex acts. so you can see that there is indeed a visible indication of hte disorder in at least some way.
homosexuality equals a genetic disorder

A genetic disorder.... let's define that. "A genetic disorder is a genetic problem caused by one or more abnormalities in the genome, especially a condition that is present from birth (congenital). Most genetic disorders are quite rare and affect one person in every several thousands or millions." A lot of people are always questioning their sexuality. Some people even think they're attracted to women before even finding out that they're actually gay. You are born with a genetic disorder. We are scared with what we don't understand. Blue eyes weren't even a thing until approximately 7,000 years ago. Would you call that a genetic disorder? No. But it's possibly as common as homosexuality. I found out I was bi sexual about a year ago. I didn't know I was until I found myself attracted to a girl and then later got together with her, finding out that I liked it. I am 13 now and can still say that I'm happy with that. Does that mean I have a genetic disorder? If you're born with a genetic disorder, people find out that you have it and it's usually noticeable. Love is something that you feel not something that's necessarily visible unlike actual genetic disorders.
Cats are better than dogs

They only go on your floor if you don't let them out. And I go back to protection. What if a criminal invades your house? A cat will hiss and run. A dog will fight back. And you really don't have to clean them every week. And what's a cat going to do when you get home? Sleep some more? A dog will greet you happily. And dogs can be trained to not rip apart their toys.
Cats are better than dogs

I see that my opponent has forfeited. I would still like to put forward some more points on my side of the argument... Dogs need washing at least once every week, as they start to smell if it is left any longer. They also squirm and jump around in the water, effectively making you went also. But cats will wash themselves. They lick themselves clean every day and never smell and if your cat sits on your couch while you are out, you'll never know. Cats have an inspired playfulness and independent spirit. They don't need your attention 24/7, they wash themselves and don't smell and don't add to the already large pile of housework to be done. Cats are perfectly happy sitting at your feet or napping in the sun the whole day.
Cats are better than dogs

Even if not every dog is high maintenance, they still require a lot more of your time then a cat does. For example, when you have a cat, you aren't constant cleaning up after them. Have you ever seen a dogs toys? They are shredded and torn and you might have to clean up stuffing that has been ripped out. Whereas, cats toys tend to be hugged, carried and carefully hidden in beds and baskets. Dogs will poo and pee all over your backyard and if you are living in an apartment, you have to take them for walks just so they can do their business. Cats, however, do it all in a small litter box and it's just a matter of emptying the box.
Cats are better than dogs

Dogs require so much time and effort. At the most inconvenient times the dog needs to go for a walk. Demands to go for a walk. It's pouring rain and all you want to do is stay at home. Then you look over at the cat, sitting snuggly on the window sill, calm and unaffected by the downpour outside. Even on a sunny day, a cat would never dream of asking to go for a walk. They are happy to be on their own and, yes, they do want some attention at times, just like any good pet, but save the scented disposal bags and pooper-scoopers for the dog. Who must be walked. Again.
China Is a democracy

China is often criticized for not being a democracy. While its system does not conform to how mainstream Western thought thinks a democracy should be run China's government is in fact a form of democracy.China has competitive elections.In China there are competitive elections at the local level. Then those elected at the local level elect the people at each higher level. Effectively this means that everyone takes part in deciding who will be elected at higher levels of government through their choice of people at a lower level. Similarly in the United States people vote for electors who represent them at the electoral college, rather than voting for president directly.Everyone who is a citizen aged 18 years or older can vote in the elections in China.For a candidate to be nominated they may be nominated by a political party (not just the Communist Party), mass organizations, and any voter seconded by at least 3 others.Voting is done by secret ballot, and voters are entitled to recall elections.There are multiple political parties in China. Not every party is allowed, but similarly there are many countries in Europe which ban Communist parties and National Socialist or Fascist parties.Some may argue that the CCP is so powerful that China is a de facto one party state. While true this does not negate China being a democracy. In Japan the Liberal Democratic Party has held majority power since 1955. But few would argue against Japan being considered a democracy. Other parties are allowed in China as long as they do not threaten the existence of the state or the existence of socialism. Really no different than how some countries ban parties which threaten the existence of democracy or which promote ideologies such as fascism or communism which the government wishes to keep from having a chance of getting a hold of power.Freedom of speechIt is true that China does not allow people to just say anything they want, but neither do most countries accepted as democracies. Germany for example bans parties that advocate hatred or extremist ideologies or denies the Holocaust occurred. Is Germany not a democracy? Even the United States has limitations on freedom of speech. Granted these limitations are smaller than most other countries. Supreme Court rulings and prevailing legal norms have the “imminent lawless action” test as the standard.Whether China is right or wrong for its speech restrictions if Con wants to argue that the speech restrictions make China “not a democracy” Con will have to rationally explain how the line is drawn for what speech can be restricted or prohibited and what can not while still calling a country a democracy.Looking forward to the response.
Liberals don't have to accept Donald Trump as their President.

Rebuttal: meaning of "liberal" can change from country to country. Here is an link why. http://www.bbc.com... I would like to know why all liberals in the world are even in this equation? I know I wont get my answer. This debate should only include USA liberals because they are the ones who are saying "hes not my president" President Trump won the Electoral College and was inaugurated, so why can people deny him as President of the USA? I said that other liberals don't have to accept Trump as their president because they don't live in the USA, how would Trump affect a liberal from Egypt? War? Any country can do that even if you don't accept them as a leader. But for USA liberals, they have to accept that he is their President. This is one of the most baited debates I got lured into, if my opponent stated that it includes all liberals I would of stayed out of the debate. I hope next time my opponent will be specific. His term for liberal was very broad.
Liberals don't have to accept Donald Trump as their President.

Rebuttal: My opponent has failed to clearly read the debate terms and definitions. Notice that I defined liberals as "a person of liberal views. " This is not specifically a United States liberal, just liberals in general. Since there are liberals outside of the United States, I am making an argument that those liberals do not have to accept him as THEIR president (strong emphasis on the word "their". .. they can accept him as president, but not as THEIR president. " The title of this debate is "Liberals don't have to accept Donald Trump as their President. " This statement from you "No they don't have to accept Trump as "their" countries leader" is a crystal clear concession to my argument, because, again, I did not say U. S. liberals, I said, in general, liberals.
Liberals don't have to accept Donald Trump as their President.

Argument: Everyone in the world has to accept that Donald Trump is the POTUS(USA only). USA liberals have to accept that Trump is their President. I don't know why liberals outside the US is even in this debate but okay. No they don't have to accept Trump as "their" countries leader. But must accept the he is the POTUS. I want to deny Kim jong un the leader of North korea, but he is.
Liberals don't have to accept Donald Trump as their President.

Donald Trump has met harsh criticism by the left, and although I lean towards the right-wing, I admit that he deserves some of this criticism, so much to the point that liberals shouldn't have to accept Donald Trump as their president. I will be arguing that Donald Trump does not have to be accepted as the official POTUS. You will be arguing that all liberals must except that he is the valid President. 1st Round: Acceptance and Definitions. 2nd Round: Arguments. 3rd Round: Additional Arguments, Rebuttals. POTUS (President of the United States): The head of the Executive Branch of the USA. liberal: a person of liberal views. Please let me know if you accept my definitions (no response to them = you do) and add any definitions you want to. Thank you for accepting!
Banning computer games

RE:"Why do people play games during class if they know that there going to fail? Its because its their choice they play games because they want to its entirely up to them. " Basically, my opponent argues that choice grants it to be okay to play video games during class. However, as one may be able to guess based on the intent of my questions, the point I'm making is that one can use this reasoning to justify any one of those actions. Just because you can choose to do something, it does not mean you ought to have the right to do it. RE: "If they fail then its there own fault there are people who play games" Just as it'd be someone's own fault if hit a pedestrian while in an automobile. Fortunately, traffic laws are put in place to decrease the odds of individuals being at fault. Just as there are rules used to decrease the amount of fault there, it's just as reasonable to have rules which decrease the amount of fault here as well. RE: "there are people who play games and dont fail there classes during school " My point wasn't to dispute whether or not such people exist. What I'm insisting is that playing games during classes decreases the chances of being successful in said classes. Most teachers do not lay out enough information for their students to be able to succeed without attending class or listening to their lectures (otherwise, college would be a whole lot better. :D ).
Banning computer games

Since this is a 5 round debate, I'd like to take this opportunity to cross examine my opponent. CROSS-EXAMINATION: Question 1) Do you believe individuals who like to rape others should be allowed to rape? Question 2) Do you believe individuals who like to kill others should be allowed to kill? Question 3) Do you believe individuals who like to rob banks should be allowed to rob banks? I look forward to my opponents answers to these questions.
Banning computer games

I stand in negation of the topic. I'd say computer games should be banned. However, the question is "Banned from what?" I say Computers games should be banned from high school and/or college classes which don't revolve around computer games. For instance, during my Geology 103 class last year, I had a friend who would play "World of Warcraft" throughout all of the lectures. This friend of mine ended up failing the course, only to repeat it during the summer semester. It's reasonable to conclude that had he not been playing his computer game, he may have had more of an incentive to listen to the lecture and TAKE NOTES. Not to mention that through not paying attention during class, he was simply wasting his (or his parents') tuition money which contributed to him having the opportunity to be in that class in the first place. In response to my opponent's arguments: RE: 1: Computer game's are a source of entertainment around the world almost everyone plays them. Ad populam. Just because almost everyone plays them (a statement which my opponent can't even prove) is a fallacious reason to conclude that computer games are good. RE: 2: "Computer games help to challenge the mind and keep it alert because you always have to be constently thinking, planning and calculating" Agreed (in generaly anyway), but one can better accomplish this if he listens to a lecture during class, participates during class or do anything else class related. Not to mention that this serves as a greater benefit an individual moreso than playing computer games as a degree can do so much in terms of a getting a well-paying job. RE: "3: Computer games help to relieve stress i find that for my self there is nothing better than jumping on a game and either killing other people around the world or versing a computer building up an army and annialating an entire civiliztion its one of my favorite things to do after a very stressfull day." True, but at the cast of failing courses or otherwise doing poorly? A cost which is most certainly not worthwhile. If one wishes to reduce stress before class, one should simply play computer games before class (after taking care of all other education related matters of course). ============================================================================
Banning computer games

I believe that computer games should not be banned these are some of my reasons: 1: Computer game's are a source of entertainment around the world almost everyone plays them. 2: Computer games help to challenge the mind and keep it alert because you always have to be constently thinking, planning and calculating and finally.... 3: Computer games help to relieve stress i find that for my self there is nothing better than jumping on a game and either killing other people around the world or versing a computer building up an army and annialating an entire civiliztion its one of my favorite things to do after a very stressfull day.
LOST was the greatest T.V. series ever

Understanding the resolution is imperative to debate if you do not understand the resolution and adhere to it's definitions then technically it's a discussion however this is a debate you accepted the definitions instead of objecting to them which you could have done. And for clarification I am not debating the definitions I am using the definitons to debate. "House should not be an option for my oppnent because it is still on the air." whether it is on the air is irrelavent House is an ongoing Tv series since we did not define or assert that a Tv series had to be finished for it to be greatest then I do not see your point. My opponent has not been able to prove that Lost was the greatest Tv series ever. "The resolution is about the best T.V. show and my opponent has just stated that House is NOT the greatest. He must have started watching Lost on Netflix instant and been blown away by its awesomeness." That is correct sir I stopped watching it because it is no longer the greatest. "Umm… Are you implying that the hospital where house works supports terrorism? This is obviously not good for his case." I was making a reference to the show obviously you have to have seen it understand what is meant and I don't see why supporting terrorism is a bad thing. "My opponent has also gotten all of his information from Wikipedia. This evidence should not be considered valid because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone" You're gonna pull the wikipedia is not a valid source argument? Ok wikipedia cannot be edited by anyone and when it is the page that was edited is checked to see if it has factual information and if you were to read through the page and go all the way down you can see all the sources from where the page's information came from. for clarification when you say no new arguments then you must also adhere to it which you did not. I did include that it was planned and said that it didn't make references to the real world but since you say being addicted is not a reference the score goes back 2-2. conclusion: My opponent has violated his own resolution failing to make it a rule to argue no semantics and failing to post definitions he is then upset because of the definitions I posted which are fair to both sides, when it was his turn he accepted the definitions and did not object to them. Vote for me yay thank you taylor for posting this debate, cordially, HPG and I included the part where it was planned