BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This house would legalise polygamy.

I will be using this round to tie up any loose ends and give my closing statements. Note: Since, this is the final round and PRO hasn't yet contested my argument about polygamy creating a large number of Low-status unmarried men, by default, it is to be taken that he has conceded to this argument.This implies that he accepts the fact of polygamy having negative effects on the society._________________________________________________________________________________________________________Now I'll cross-examine PRO's assertion and try to rebut them.Children in polygamous communities are taught to fear the police and are not likely to report an abusive neighbour if they suspect their own parents might be caught up in a subsequent criminal investigation.This does not give a proper logical reason to legalize polygamy. Children born to absconding criminals may also face the same problem so does that mean, by PRO's argument, that crime should be legalized? The logic used here is ludicrous.Men in monogamous marriages can"t be spread too thin? Children in monogamous families don"t rival each other for the attentions of their parents?If a monogamous marriage can end up bad, a polygamous one would turn out to be disastrous.Right of the bat a polygamous marriage would require the family patriarch to spend his time with each and every family in the marriage.Best scenerio is he spending equal time and resources with all the families but still this is much less than what would be the case in a monogamous marriage. For example lets say a person has five families so now he has to split his time and resources to all five families and can even result to prioratizing and the person, lets say a man who is the center of the monogamous marriage, investing more or less time/resources to a particular family. A monogamous marriage doesn't have this dilemna and has a relatively better chance of being stable and long-lasting.PRO has plagiarized the remainder of his arguments from this website ( http://www.slate.com... ), I will not be responding to them but, considering the fact that he is relatively a new member here, I leave it to the judges to decide on whether he should be penalized for this or not. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________This seemed like a promising debate at the start but am really disturbed and grieved that it has now succumbed to end like this but, anyhow, I will be proceed to give my conclusion and close the case.Conclusion:A polygamous marriage, as I have established, comes with its drawbacks that can turn out to be quite harmful for the family itself and the society as a whole. Though a polygamous marriage does come with its advantages, I have shown that the disadvantages heavily outweighs the advantages.Thus I have neccasarily negated the resolution and have succesfully upheld my case.I advocate a CON ballot!
This house would legalise polygamy.

Thank you Con for your swift reply! Con asserts that loving more than one person is unmanageable and that it's difficult to do so. It cannot be implicitly stated that this is unfeasible as emotional restraint will alleviate the issues you present. Polygamy is a legally binding contract (like marriage) and so there is no reason for this to be an issue. Why is it pragmatically difficult to manage loving more than one person at a time? Main reasons: 1> Societal constraints on how many people can be in a relationship- seeing more than one person makes you heartless and insensitive. Surely polygamy nullifies this, if you are ALLOWED to be with more than one person at once, then being with more than one person will be seen as OK. 2> Indecisiveness- Ties in to previous point. If you are unable to decide, for example, between two people that you love, it can pose a problem- but if you weren't forced to pick, and both of the people that you were interested in loved you enough not to mind being with the other person as well, then that eliminates the "indecisiveness" issue as well. IF MARRIAGE CIVILIZES MEN, then surely having more members in the family will mean that the man will be even more aware of the fact that he should not commit crimes and act civil, since the consequences of not doing so will become harsher the more wives he has..
This house would legalise polygamy.

I will structure my opening statement by putting across a number of points supporting the legalisation of Polygamy. Polygamy makes having a family less of a strain. More providers can make contributions to the home a lot more easy. It makes the family unit more efficient and coherent, as more people can pursue careers and bring in money, but due to economies of scale, less additional money will be needed for each additional partner. For example, it is cheaper to cook in large quantities than if each person were cooking individually. Similarly, additional people in the house won"t need another kitchen or necessarily another bathroom, so therefore it"s cheaper to live in groups " particularly groups with multiple incomes. In addition, there is more likely to be a person staying at home, which saves on childcare. While it will not always be the case there are many ways in which living in groups can be more economical and enjoyable due a instilled sense of community. Creating stable, long-lasting relationships. Polygamy reduces the strains on family life and lowers the likelihood of breakdown and divorce. Polygamy reduces the desire for adultery by providing alternatives for sexual exploration within the family. People look for a lot of qualities in a wife, and that it is unlikely that any one person can possess them all, which is why there is so much adultery in monogamous relationships. Polygamy can alleviate this. People should have freedom of choice. The law should recognise freedom of choice. If somebody wants to marry more than one person, and all parties involved agree, then the state should not get involved. We have a right to privacy, and a right to non-interference in our family life. These are not absolute rights, but they are important: breach of them needs to be contemplated with extreme care and is not merited here. This is particularly important because some religious sects promote polygamy, so banning it also impinges on freedom of religion.
Religions are just stories that have been altered and changed throughout history.

Myth would be a better word to describe the "stories" in the Bible, but even if we call religion just stories Pro has not proved they were altered or changed throughout history. Pro didn't even attempt to do so. Furthermore, I showed a small example of religion surviving even when their "stories" don't. This shows that religion is much more than the myths. Religion provides a community, culture and a way of life for people that believe. Religion provides comfort for the sick and dying, gives hope to those who's loved ones have passed. Religious charities are the largest source of philanthropy in the world. Religion is much much more than "just stories that have been altered and changed throughout history." It is Pro who has taken the religion scenario and misconstrued it. The only "proof" pro offered is a hypothetical anecdote of what if Harry Potter was taught as religion to me. The Bible itself sets a moral code in the 10 Commandments. Religion is a way of life NOT a story. Thanks
Religions are just stories that have been altered and changed throughout history.

It's not a matter of who I think should define the word religion. It's a matter of fact, that humans created and defined our religions. Unless a God performs a miracle in modern history, where there is factual evidence of its existence and scientific facts that it has occurred, then it's nothing more than a story. You're taking my Harry Potter scenario and misconstruing it. I simply said, "If while growing up, you were taught that the Harry Potter stories were true, and you were brought to church to read Harry Potter verses, and pray to Harry Potter at your bed side at night", just as you or someone of Christian faith worships the Bible now, then you would not be able the tell the difference between this fictitious scenario of Harry Potter worship, and reality of Bible worship. You can replace the Bible with any story, if I raise a child and tell them to believe this story or burn in eternal Hell, then they'll more than likely believe it. Some won't believe it, sure, people like me.
Religions are just stories that have been altered and changed throughout history.

Definition of Religion & StoriesI’m not sure who pro thinks should define the word “religion”. Pro didn’t disagree with the definition so much as saying the definition wouldn’t exist without religion existing. However, what isn’t obvious is that they are just altered stories as defined in R1.In Native American religions, there is no separation between the physical and the spiritual. To these Native Americans, the oral traditions are helpful but not essential to their belief system. In fact these religions have been resurging despite having lost most of their oral tradition [1].Worship or Not to Worship Harry PotterYou assume that even if one believes the Harry Potter story was true that one would believe in “Harry Potterism”. Many things that are true are not worshipped. People who hear true stories have become Christians. Religion is more than just "altered stories".Source:[1] http://www.britannica.com...Cheers
Religions are just stories that have been altered and changed throughout history.

Thanks Con for the warm welcoming 1) The definition of religion was defined by humans, based on the belief of religion. Christianity, or Judaism for example would not exist if it weren't for the scriptures passed down along history. Without the "words of a God", there would be nothing worth passing down. The passing down of these words has created religion as we know it today. The definition is only there because of the "stories". Due to this fact, I would like Con to take their argument from a different approach, and try to disprove my approach. 2) I do not know if Con is religious, but I would like Con to answer this question as if they are religious, for the sake of argument. If you are now a Christian, and Christianity never existed and you were brought up and told "Harry Potter" were as true as the "New Testament" is today, would you worship it the same? Would you honestly assume "Harry Potter" as fiction, even if it were the only thing you were taught, just as the Bible is now?
Religions are just stories that have been altered and changed throughout history.

Also, welcome to DDO! Pro argues that religions are ‘just' stories. I argue that religion as defined below is not told for amusement nor has pro proven that religion is imaginary. The burden of proof for this assertion is on pro. Pro also makes the false analogy between religion and "Harry Potter" in assuming that "Harry Potter" if it was as true as the Bible that it would be worshipped. === Definitions === religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power , especially a personal God or gods story: 1 an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment Sources: [1] . http://oxforddictionaries.com... [2] . http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Religions are just stories that have been altered and changed throughout history.

You'll have to forgive me, as this is my first debate. I would like to argue in favor of religion being 'just' a story. If while growing up, you were taught that the Harry Potter stories were true, and you were brought to church to read Harry Potter verses, and pray to Harry Potter at your bed side at night, then if you came across your current God's book now in your life (such as the Bible), you'd disregard it as fiction... The point I am trying to make is that if you assume the Bible never existed, and another fictitious story was put in its place and was told to be the words of a God, then that story would be worshiped just the same.
Rap battle

At least I have a home, my den covered with traps This guy JediDude brings a bad name to rap You are Kylo Ren, then I'ma be Rei Oh wait I'M the jedi. At least I ain't g@y You are the top dog? Under me anyway You think I'm giving my best, I could beat you any day I'm the boss around here, you ain't got any say Work you up till midnight you leave without any pay I'm a thug with a cop? It's opposite day! Lifetime in jail you can't run away Dragon technique is a traitor, it killed you they say Survived all this while only for your skin to flay I'm your b*itch? I'm the one fvcking you You plead me to stop but I ain't even through So many words to say so little bars, true? Better watch your mouth little doggy or you may get sued.
Rap battle

You really so basic you listen to Eminem? You just sitin in your den and listen to all of them? And then I"m wondering bout that gall callin me weak, Cause bitch, I"m kylo ren, you"re f*ckin reek. You see, I didn"t get this physique by listenin to him shriek, I was working on my bars, while you were takin a leak. Now this rap "ll be lookin a bit bleak for this little sneak, When I take your your harpsichord and break it like this little antique. You can take your mercy and shove it up your @ss geek, Your like Cersei, your at your peak, But now I have amassed a dragon technique, I"ll roast you freak, and make you wish I didn"t speak. This time I"m the top dog, and you're just my b*tch, Maybe you should ditch this act of being the next Eminem, So bark up a storm, while I pitch you this next bar, You think your a star, but you're just a thug who's been pushed in cop car.
Rap battle

Hi flying spaghetti monster guy Explosions, let me let the toaster fly And then im jabbing at the Jedi with a lightsaber But at the second round, I will show you my might later You are the weak jedi, I'm the sith lord Strum to the beat, hear this diss chord Then I'm whaking you all over the place with my harpcishord You may hurt me a little but I'ma be restored Just because I acceped your request you think I'ma show mercy? Think you deserve to win deem yourself worthy? But your bars, like your clothes completely dirty Blast you from Liverpool straight to New Jersey I already won in the first round, my bars more supreme Turn a dream to a nightmare, force you to scream I ain't even trying, no point to do so What's one plus one? JediDude, "I dunno" (Excuse if the bars are a little fast. I was listening to "Biterphobia" earlier. Fast rap is implanted in my brain)
Rap battle

You've been dying to battle me NDE, and it's been a long wait, but you even look at me the wrong way and it's long blades.See saw shank, there's no escaping this sh*t, it ain't Shawshank.Now can you picture a way beyond these bars? Or is it all hate?I'm on a level that you never knew, see two dimensional rappers,depending how it shapes up on paper can be acceptableBut 3D writers go so far in depth you can literally see what he says to you.But I'm on a different level of writing, the fourth dimensional Timing, it's too exceptionalFvck your sh*t, it's all skeletalI write sh*t you never do, some people said he's a one trick ponyWell I'm correcting you Cause your lines gotta connect two points to be one dimensional,you're not even that.Die mentioning (dimensional) my name next to youCause it something you could never measure to.
Rap battle

I can keep my composure? I'ma take yours too This "wannabe" slim shady ain't even through You will notice im a rap god compared to you Even purushadasa is nicer (but more annoying) to whom shall I sue? I used to be a fan but now I'm an air-conditioner Not Eminem's b*tch just listen your the prisoner At least Masterful is good and is a good listener Released from jail but for you, I'm the executioner You say my bars are weak like an old lady? You can't even get on my level, a rapping noob maybe At least I have a role model, you ain't got anyone I wanted a good battle and rapper, you ain't got any done This little b*tch will regret ever having accepted Such weak lines were not what I expected 4th round face it you dunno how to rap I'm your b*tch? You better shut your trap
Rap battle

Con's dough will get took, that's a foreclosure! Why is he a tranny, maybe his mom’s exposure, Don’t worry bro, you can keep your composure, Just hope this one rap battle will be you're closure How many bars will it take just to lyrically rape and humiliate this fake? you rap more like a wannabe Slim Shady, But honestly you’re bars more frail than an old lady. I flayed this b*tch, and all he do is bray I castrate, mutilate, spayed and displayed to humiliate, And all he do is serenade like some old maid! If I wanted a freak show I’d just go to your moms stockade! But don’t worry, we know your charade, I mean it's the same jade zaid shady’ portrays! I’ve sprayed you're @ss like I’m in an arcade, Now it's time for you to go home unmade.
Messi, better than CR7

Messi hasn"t a close scoring with Ronaldo, in all the competitions Messi has 14 goals, a good number but Cristiano has 26! In the Spain league, Messi has scored 8 goals, Cristiano 17. On champions league Messi 6, Ronaldo 9 beating the record of more goals on regular phase. The total ratio of goals is Messi .88 Cristiano Ronaldo 1.37. It is clear who is more important at their team talking about goals.
Messi, better than CR7

Messi has an important skill Ronaldo lacks in soccer: Team Play. Even thou he has a close scoring record with Ronaldo; he clearly has much more assists. The 4 times he has won Golden Ball, he has always has acknowledged his teammates Xavi and Iniesta. Messi has a perfect combination of technique, speed, balance and intelligence which give him the ability to sprint into a crowd of players and come out the other side with the ball still at his feet. While Messi isn't the fastest of sprinters, he can move the ball really fast, which makes it extremely difficult to take off the ball.
Messi, better than CR7

Messi isn"t better for a few reasons: he is a player that outstands in Barcelona but he depends a lot on his team, this is the reason why he isn"t vital when he plays with Argentina. On the other hand Cristiano Ronaldo is a player that only depends on what he does. In the past game with Portugal he was really important for Portugal to get their pass to the world cup. He scores 1 goal on the first game and 3 on the second one. His physical qualities are a big difference with Messi, he has a great speed, a lot of strength and he is tall, while Messi is none of this, yes he maybe better playing at a team or at driveling the ball but, if we ask the defense of different teams of the league they both play, who is harder to contain, I am pretty sure they would answer: Cristiano.
We know with confidence when we know little. provide your answers with example relating to religion

Thank you for offering up this debate, it seems like quite an intriguing debate, and one that I believe I will thoroughly enjoy. So, let's begin I disagree. Specifically the first pro argument references Islam and its actions in forbidding discussion of faith. However, let me offer a following counterexample from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which offers a unique and quite contrarian point. "Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful." This quote demonstrates two things. First, it demonstrates, if nothing else, the belief that certain sects of Christianity, in this case Catholicism, profess to already have significant knowledge in theology (the center of this debate), which implies 1. That confidence doesn't exist because the lack of knowledge is not present, or 2. the Catholic Church has confidence that they know a significant amount, the exact opposite of the statement affirmed by the pro. Secondly, it references the nature of man in this topic specifically. To clarify, the specific portion in contention here is "So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful." This introspective look on the mind of man clearly outlines the exact opposite of the pro in quite an articulate fashion. It is human nature to deny ignorance, and rather it is common for man to falsely believe in their knowledge when in fact, little exists. Thus I stand in negation of the pro position. Man does not know when they know little. In fact, history has proven itself that man nearly invariably assumes its correctness, and acts out harshly and even violently when one attempts to show them the error of their ways. This is seen through the suppression of new scientific ideas in the Middle Ages, through the continued religious intolerance, and through many more ways. Man does not "know with confidence when we know little." In fact it has historically been the nature of man to operate under the maxim of exactly the contrary of that, that man never truly knows when they are wrong, and often have confidence in their incorrectness.
We know with confidence when we know little. provide your answers with example relating to religion

I believe that it is true that we know with confidence when we know little, when it relates to religious systems, as you can see in the Islamic belief they are told not to discuss people in relation to their religion and this could possibly be due to the idea that they do not want the believers to argue as they will have increased knowledge when it comes to religion and it usually yields doubt in them and they will move away from religion, this is just a small example i would love to hear your opinions with strong examples from religious texts with citation or proof.