BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Greece should be kicked out of the euro

Thank you for joining my debate as it is also my first debate and would like to wish good look to both . I believe Con has made a major error in reading my original argument, it is about being kicked out of the euro zone NOT the EU. I believe that Greece should stay in the EU as it will need as much support as possible as it is a founder of the union,but the Euro zone is a financial based organisation to ensure Europe's economy can flourish and to keep Europe in the world market. This point can be reinforced with China's economy getting ever larger as well as Brazil and India pushing Europe out of the way. We are looking at the bigger picture and unfortunately Greece will have to be the sacrifice to keep the Euro floating. Remember Spain and Portugal are also suffering although they are still going ,surely the Euro should focus their efforts on keeping countries out of Greece's position ? I am defiantly not suggesting that Greece should be allowed to be left on the side . The IMF can help it along and Greece can be allowed to take its time to recover in its own economy . I look forward to the oppositions Rebuttal
Greece should be kicked out of the euro

Before I begin, I'd like to say that I am rather excited to take part in this debate--being my first. As well, while I AM an American, I hope to look at this from a different angle.Greece's economy, which as we all know, has caused near social collapse, would most likely fall even further into its economic collapse should it be removed from the EU. One may respond by saying "Yes, but that wouldn't affect the EU any more." However, should Greece's economy worsen even more (caused by its leaving of the EU), the current government could easily be overthrown by an anarchist or communist revolution. This in and of itself could create more issues in Europe.On a side argument, Greece, according to Pro's argument, should only be looked at as a simple financial asset--in other words, because it's economy is in the dumps, it should immediately be punished. However, what Pro seems to forget is the contributions Greece has made to Europe as a whole in the past: Greece was the birthplace of integral aspects of Europe, such as Democracy, and major philisohphical strides in general, as well as economic (regardless of current economic situations.) Therefore, it would seem that pushing the Greeks out of the EU would betray what the EU actually is--a union, that is meant to benefit and help all of its members, not to banish any country which lags behind.I look forward to hearing from Pro and hearing the rebuttal.
Greece should be kicked out of the euro

Greece has already been paid billions of euros already ,causing the whole of europe to go in to turmoil . Spain and portugal are VERY close to Greece's postion and we do Not want the euro to go into crisis ,it is suffering at the moment and we dont want all the euro to go as well . We need steady economies int the euro not weak ones !! If we did it would just dissapear anyway because they are in so much debt it just wont work .
animals should stop being used as testing subjects

Using the agreed question (from the comments), I am debating based on the following question: Be it resolved that animals should not be used for testing. I will be debating the Con side of this argument, however will not be debating that animals SHOULD be used for testing, but rather that it is not in and of itself immoral that animals ARE used for testing. I am using the following definition: Animal: a living, multi-cellular biological organism which derives nourishment through ingestion rather than photosynthesis, and which are spontaneously and independently mobile, and not a human being. I will use Round 2 to rebut Pro, and I will conclude in Round 3. Ultimately, the question of whether or not it is right to use animals for product testing is a moral one. As such, I will be arguing from moral grounds. So, given that this is to be a moral argument, why does man have morals if but to serve our values? What does a rational human being hold as their highest value or highest purpose? I would argue that the first principle of morality is to pursue man's primary purpose " that being survival of man qua man.[1] In other words, in order to survive as a human being ought to survive. In other words, the prime moral directive of a human being is to choose his actions, values, and goals, in such a way as to maintain and enjoy that which we value the highest " our own life.[2] Given that products which are tested upon animals are generally either necessary for the direct preservation of our lives (pharmaceuticals), or aid us in the enjoyment of our own lives (shampoo, soap, cosmetics). It is necessary to perform testing on living cellular structures similar to that of human beings in order to determine safety for human use. Given that necessity, it is therefore morally justifiable to use animals for testing purposes. 1) Ayn Rand, "The Virtue of Selfishness", p21 http://philo.abhinav.ac.in... 2) Ibid, p22
About Death Note (Not you, the show)

No offense taken. This is mostly out of curiousity and for fun. But it really isn't so pointless as this one "debate" I've looked at...it was more of this girl flirting with a guy...like it was an online dating chat room! But if you think about L dying and not catching Kira, he didn't really have that much time. There wasn't a whole lot of time between L getting his hands on the Death Note and his death for him to deduct that Light was Kira (if you don't count the anime fillers). Plus there was the whole "Ryuk writing false rules in the Death Note" that would've thrown him off track considerably. He didn't know about relinquishing ownership of the Death Note and losing all memories concerning it and then once becoming in possession of it again regaining the lost memories, which was Light's plan. I still believe L would've found out the truth of Light if he had more information to begin with (which we know was not going to happen), and more time. It seems like this "debate" has turned its attention more towards Light and L, huh?
About Death Note (Not you, the show)

ok well right now im not too sure about lights voice actor, so i will get back to you on that one. but most people dont give american voice actors the credit they should get so i believe that there is a chance you arn't looking into the quality of his acting. Next; i agree with you that misa isnt stupid, but the reason for her to be outshined by light is because she is a huge risk for him. he knew this about her character ever since she blurted out "we will show our shinigami when we meet" he knew that she dosent completely think through every action she takes so he tries to keep her out of most the things he does so he dosent get caught. as for L, he tries to put her in positions like she is stupid so she might end up getting psycoligicaly out witted and crack, possibly reveiling information by accident. Lastly about Near; i believe that you make a good point on being "poorly construted" but the whole point of his character is because of L getting close to Kira. the only reason for L confronting Kira is because he knew that light had a huge possibilty (to him only about 7% chance) of being Kira, and confronted him. we both know that this led up to the events that happend over the 2-4 years that went on. but Near was made so that there was another chance at capturing kira. sure he didnt have much to go with, without the death note information, but this just lead to another battle between two genis'. ok last thing.....of course L was given a blank slate, it wasnt like Kira was going to come out and tell him information. it is like a real life senerio, he has to find out how he thinks. The power of the death note was a vital part that L was missing but once he got a hold of a death note he still didnt catch Kira, he only knew of Kira's real identy at the moment he died, so in a nutshell, knowing about the power of the death note was vital, but he still didnt catch kira. as for right now, i cant think of really anything to "debate" about so umm.... i look forward to your reply and ps. dont take anything personally because it is just my thoughts on your subjects
About Death Note (Not you, the show)

Sorry to bother you, but I'm just really bored and had to argue about a couple of things. Although now that I'm actually doing this, I feel pretty stupid...^_^; For starters, Light's English dub kinda sucks. He can't pull off a decent insane laugh and he'll need to for the last episode. Misa isn't stupid. She is smart, but she's constantly outshined by Light or L. She's annoying, but not necessarily stupid. Finally, Near would be nowhere on the Kira case without the information on Death Notes left behind by L. In comparison, Near is a poorly constructed character with no personality. Also, I think that the only reason L was unable to catch Kira/Light is because he didn't know anything about the power of the Death Note or Shinigami eyes or anything. He was given a blank slate and had to work with it. Sorry again, but I'd like to hear another's opinions about these things. And if you'd like to throw anything out into the fray, feel free to do so, so that I may not spiral further down into self loathing because of my stupidity and bordedom. Thank you!
About Death Note (Not you, the show)

Thank you for the debate, im not to sure what it is about but i going off a huntch that i wont end up agreeing to something that i cant possibly have a change at winning. To answer your question, yes i do watch death note on adult swim, i also own the first two dvd's of death note and have 11 of the 12 books. (im not to sure about the rumors of the 13th book) Umm well since im not to sure what we are debating about ill just leave my argument at that and say "I look forward to your reply"
About Death Note (Not you, the show)

I don't really have a clue...maybe if I had more time I could figure it out (I'm in class at school, you see). But I can't just look at it for about three seconds and figure it out. I'm not Light Yagami! lol. Just some random information that I thought was funny and might explain Light's disinterest in girls. His last name backwards is spelt; Imagay. Yagami. Im a gay. lol The problem with finding loopholes in Death Note is because it is so elaborate and thought out so thoroughly. Plus it follows fairly closely to the manga, aside from the fillers and the ending. But thanks again for this discussion and I promise I won't bother you anymore.
About Death Note (Not you, the show)

Lol online chatroom, thats pretty sweet, expecially the flirt part lol. when you say he L didnt have that much time to deduce that Light was kira it is sorta wrong. because L knew that light was kira he just didnt have any proof. Ryuk writing the false rules in the death note did screw up L and made it almost impossible for him to prove that Light=Kira. so i totally agree with you in that part. Again its ture that L would have caught light if he had more. mabye if Misa or possibly Light would have left more of a trail behind it wouldl have made it more possible. its hard for that to believe that light would have left a trail but misa could have, again i believe she is not stupid but she dosent think before she acts. is there any other animes or "plot holes" in death note, that you'd like to debate about lol? im game for most things. hey just for fun try to decode this like what kira did to L. ps. idk if any of this is true or not hey do you know that tsugumi oba what's his first prequal of deathnote published in a shoenjump magazine. your's and mine's (idk about urs) favorite manga was email'ed to him that later on it would become a full fleged manga, his adress was 34666 imaginihs street in japan lol just for fun and find out what imaginihs is. (hint sdrawkcab)
Single-gender Schools Are Better Than Coed

*Women are discriminated against You said that women's opinions are valued more than men's. You then continue to say that women are discriminated against. These two statements are conflicting as you say men are discriminated, then you say women are, obviously both are in different and similar way's, but in this case men are the ones being discriminated against according to my understanding of your opinion. *Females don't feel confident in themselves (Leadership positions) In what ways do females feel as if they are not fit for leadership positions, and if they are, how are we supposed to fix this problem with single sex schools? When both genders are isolated from the other they get and unnatural feel for who is going to be in the leadership positions in the workplace. *Equally valued opinions in schools Obviously opinions will be valued equally as there is only one place for the opinion to come, and that is the inherent problem, people are discriminating on gender in schools, and making it so they cant because there is only one gender to listen too is not helping the problem, it is only running away from it. to fix this problem we need to let both genders know they are valued, and we need to have everyone's opinion listened to to by everyone else, regardless of gender. *Concentrating on studies There will always be gossip at schools, no matter what the school is, coed or single-sex, and this gossip is the problem, the other sex based gossip is not. *Lowering teenage pregnancy rates Of course the teenage pregnancy rate would be lower, there is no way for them to get pregnant, however lowering teenage pregnancy rates would be easier by having a thorough sex-ed. Having kids know the risks is better then for them to have no possibility of getting pregnant, not knowing how that stuff works, and then getting pregnant because of a misconception and poor sex-ed. *Grade improvements Where are your sources for this? How do you know that their grades will improve, and in what way will they?
Single-gender Schools Are Better Than Coed

Teachers often value female opinions more than male. It will help decrease discrimination against women. When girls see a female principal, and other female leadership positions they will feel responsibility and will realize that they can have leadership positions in life. In single-gender schools all opinions are equally valued. Students will be able to concentrate on their studies and not on who likes who and dating. It will lower the rates of unwanted teenage pregnancies. Grades will improve by at least 59% for boys and 19% for girls.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at a time

1. All parties involved need to reach an agreement on what they define romantic love as. In this case love is based on trust, understanding, honesty, and intimacy 2. Intimacy does not have to mean being sexually intimate with a person or more than one person. It can mean to share your deepest thoughts and desires with another person and be totally open with them which can allow for a romantic love to develop. 3. Romantic love does not have to entail sexual relations but it can. 4. A healthy relationship is based upon the above information which can be found in more than one person at a time. 5. The feelings of romantic love are out of one"s control which can lead to a person being in love with more than one person at a time. 6. Feelings most of the time overpower the mind. There are usually two conflicting powers controlling you when it comes to love and that is the heart and the mind. The heart wants what it wants and if you have strong enough feelings for two people at once you will listen to your heart and love them both simultaneously. 7. Polygamist relationships are multiple people having romantic love for one main person 8. Polygamists are aware that they are in a romantic relationship with someone who is also in a romantic relationship with other people. This is not considered cheating. 9. Therefore, it is possible to romantically love more than one person at once. My argument that it is possible for a person to romantically love more than one person at a time still stands. The premises outlined in round one remain true even after my opponent tried to refute them. Premise five in my opponent's round three proves my point further because she is agreeing with me that feelings overpower the mind when it comes to romantic love. She claims that it is wrong to romantically love more than one person at a time but does not explain why based on the premise that your heart overpowers your mind. I hold on to the belief that it is possible to romantically love more than one person at a time based on what has been stated.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at a time

1.) I disagree with your statement regarding that intimacy is what separates romantic love from familial love. As I stated in round one, it is my opinion that intimacy does not have to include being physically intimate with another person but rather being close to their mind and to their soul. Usually intimacy is most related to romantic love however and if the connection is there then you can be intimate with more than one person at a time. 2.) Romantic love is indeed precious and rare even when you have those feelings for more than one person at a time. A relationship between two people is simply that, a relationship between two people and only two people. If a person is in two separate relationships at once what happens in one relationship has nothing to do with what happens in the other relationship. The same goes for polyamory and polygamy, the love that is between each of those people is private and precious and only for them to share in and appreciate. 3.) Although this may not always be the case for everyone and every relationship but I do believe that feelings most of the time overpower the mind. There are usually two conflicting powers controlling you when it comes to love and that is the heart and the mind. The heart wants what it wants and if you have strong enough feelings for two people at once you will listen to your heart and love them both simultaneously. 4.) I agree with this statement because it ties in what I stated before about a relationship being only about those in the relationship. Outside noise and drama should not effect a relationship and the people involved in that relationship because they are strong enough as a team to look passed it and motivate one another to rise above and be better. 5.) I agree with this statement only because it can be applied to someone who romantically loves more than one person as well. They want the best for everyone involved which may include making sacrifices and taking control of situations to better the situation. 6.) I disagree with this statement. A bond between two people does reiterate their trust and honesty for one another. But look at is this way, just because you trust one friend does not mean you cannot trust anyone else. The same goes for romantic love, as long as the four main qualities we previously discussed are there, trust, understanding, honesty and intimacy a person can romantically love as many people as they want.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at a time

1.) I agree that you can love someone or more than one person without ever being in love with any them, but you cannot romantically love more than one person like such, in the sense that what we defined romantic love as, is having four factors of trust, understanding, honesty, and intimacy. It is intimacy that separates a romantic love from a familial love or love for a friend (strictly friend-zone). What you are saying, the way the sentence was worded, applies to all forms of love, other than romantic love. 2.) To defend my point further more, romantic love is authentic, rare, and precious, which I had mentioned before. Romantic love leads to becoming in love with someone, just one person, for these special qualities. When love is truly authentic, it belongs to the one and only who deserves it for seeing it in its raw form, and appreciating the person who expresses his/her romantic love for them. 3.) Jealousy actually can ruin a relationship because feelings are always involved in any relationship. Polygamous relationships involve these feelings invoked by romantic love and the act of sharing each other without the certainty of loving all equally, happening sometimes unexpectedly. 7.) Is it really true or practical that feelings overpower the mind? Can it really be that people want to believe and convince themselves this is the case, due to which the fact that humans think this way is because we choose the idea that is more favorable/pleasurable to the mind? 8.) Love is special in a way which can most certainly cloud and confuse the mind, but romantic love also deals with making sacrifices and choosing what is best for both partners. This is called having control, the ability to make sacrifices in a romantic relationship based on certain situations, together, in the face of real love. Although other people may be the cause of or, have a part in difficulties between two romantic partners, it should do nothing to faze them because they know they have each other, they are a team. 5.) People fall in and out of love all the time, based on their emotions and feelings, which is uncontrollable in that sense. However, when two partners are dependent of each other, they are understanding of what is best for the both of them, and they agree upon these things together, while retaining what is defined as romantic love and retaining control, simultaneously. 6.) One cannot romantically love more than one person at a time, because the bond between two people assures truth in honesty. A person can tell if their romantic partner does not love them anymore, in most cases.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at a time

1.) I agree with your statement about romantic love being rare, authentic, something that is precious. However, we are discussing romantic love which, I believe, is something different than being in love which you stated in premise one. There is a difference between being in love with a person and romantically loving a person. You can love someone or more than one person without ever being in love with any of them. The topic is about romantically loving more than one person, not being in love with more than one person. 3.) I agree that favoritism can lead to issues if you are romantically involved with more than one person but that is not always the case. People in open relationships and polygamist relationships are fully aware that favoritism is a possibility in the relationship. And although emotions can get the best of us they know not to let jealousy ruin the relationship. 4.) My response to premise three applies to premise four as well. 7.) I disagree with your statement regarding control being nonexistent only when faced with a true love. Most of the time you cannot even control you have a crush on which is the most menial aspect of romantic love there is. When it comes to love, of any kind, your feelings overpower your mind.