BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The world would be better if we were all the same.

To summarize my opponent’s arguments, he basically says that wars and conflict happen because people disagree with each other, but he does nothing to refute my arguments on how humanity needs conflict and difference to continue to thrive and evolve. “we should take the same accepting approach to people who think outside the box for social advancement, much like the Rhodesians did during the final years of existence, they managed to still maintain sameness and familiarity and have one of the strongest economies in the world ($1 U.S= $1.40 Rhodesian). This unity strengthened not only their economy but their technology as well.” Okay, so one place thrives because people agree with each other. I understand this, but in a realistic sense humanity never would have gotten to this point if we all agreed with each other. What we have here with the Rhodesians is the product of years of debating, different ideas, politics, conflict, ect. ect. till humans could finally agree on the best possible economy they could make. Humans that always agree, will never progress because humans thrive on different ideas and opinions in order to evolve. You’re example is actually just an example of one good place that could exist if every human agreed on its economics, but what if every human agreed that a dictatorship where people strictly punished for doing the slightest of wrongs was the best economy for the people? Obviously it’s not, but because every agrees on it they will never evolve past it to true happiness and the freedom of being away from an oppressive government. However, once one man says “we want freedom!” and others join in, even though conflict will soon arise, the fact that humans can understand and fight for what they believe in regardless of whether conflict arises is what is important. It allows them to truly know what the pursuit of happiness is. In a world where everyone agrees, humanity simply cannot thrive, for they can never improve. I argue that if every human agreed on the same things then humans never would have evolved scientifically really due to primitive religion and beliefs. Or what about flawed scientific theories? No one can say they’re wrong because everyone agrees that they’re right. IF ONE MAN SAYS THAT 2+2=5 THEN HIS WORD IS LAW, IF IT WASN’T ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT 2+2=4! Do you see my point now? Humanity evolves once one man proves that science is behind those religions and goes against what they believe, humanity improves when one man debunks scientific theory, and for goodness sake humanity improves when one man understands that 2+2=4 and shows the world that that is correct! The only way your arguments would ever work that humanity would be better off if we all agreed and were all the same would be if humanity already had every single piece of knowledge in existence, which is obviously not a viable argument.
The world would be better if we were all the same.

I claim that the world would be better if everyone was the same, I NEVER once claimed thinking outside the box was a bad thing, but we should take the same accepting approach to people who think outside the box for social advancement, much like the Rhodesians did during the final years of existence, they managed to still maintain sameness and familiarity and have one of the strongest economies in the world ($1 U. S= $1.40 Rhodesian). This unity strengthened not only their economy but their technology as well. Having said that brings me on to my next point, difference is the ONLY reason to have conflict. Sigmund Freud agrees strongly with that belief as expressed by this article "Sigmund Freud and other psychologists hold the view that the innate instinct for aggression in man is the main cause of conflict. Thus, various causes lead to conflict. " (. http://www.preservearticles.com...)and the story continues:"1. Individual Difference:In society, men are not alike in their nature, attitudes, ideal, interest and aspirations. Due to this difference, they fail to accommodate themselves which may lead to conflict among them.2. Cultural Difference: Culture is the way of life of a group. It differs from society to society. The culture of one group differs from the culture of the other group. These cultural differences among the group, sometimes cause tension and lead to conflict.3. Clashes of Interests: The clash of interests of different people makes conflict inevitable. The interests of the workers clash with those of employers lead to conflict among them.4. Social Change: Conflict also arises due to the difference between rates of social change. The change in the moral norms of a society and man's hopes, aspirations and demands leads to conflict . The conflict between the old and new generations is owing to social changes. Conflict is an expression of social disequilibrium. "Psychologists and other well-decorated psychologists all agree that for every conflict, there is an underlying cause of difference. And you bring up the point of slavery and racism. Slavery would never have happened if there wasn't a financial or racial difference between the whites and black. They were taken as slaves purely to make money. So if everyone had no differences, the civil war would have never happened. Especially in the government, if they all agreed the war would have never happened. And if you're scared of advancement the Soviet Union not only put the first man in space, cloned a human being, and split the hydrogen atom while maintaining one of the strongest economies in the world, but they had a single-party government with high regulation.
The world would be better if we were all the same.

I ACCEPT!I argue that the world would not be better if we all agreed on everything, and that in fact the world would be a whole lot worse. You see, humanity advances when one thinks outside of the box.When one rejects what others think, what other say you cannot do.Here's an example:Galileo lived in Christendom (Christianity ruled Europe most authorities were Christians, I believe the Pope was the ruler). All Christians at the time believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth, due to the Bible verse that the "Earth is unmoving".At the time that verse was taken quite literally. Galileo, who was also a Christian, rejected this idea and scientifically went on to prove that the Earth did indeed revolve around the Sun, despite being punished and ridiculed by those all around him.Galileo rejected what everyone thought, and in return he made great scientific advancements. Galileo, thought outside of the box. What about the Civil War? If we all agreed and thought that blacks were good enough to be treated like whites, then today they would still be our slaves. They would be granted no rights, they would still be punished harshly.However, it started with some men saying "Hey, this isn't right". They were the ones that thought outside of the standard and eventually they got so many to join their side, and through will and force they won the Civil War granting rights to blacks. However, we wouldn't have even gotten that far if everyone thought the same. If everyone thought the same we would never get out of primitive ideologies and practices. We would never move forward. Humanity thrives off of those who say "Things need to be changed!"Are they wrong sometimes? I'd say more than sometimes.But for those times when they are right and for those times when we join together to push forward despite those who try to stop us is when we move forward as mankind! Thank you.
Legally lower the drop out age for high schools in America

I accept.I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. By first round for acceptance, I will draw the conclusion that I am allowed to bring up the structure of my arguments.If my opponent meant otherwise, I would like to point out that I only have 3,000 characters per round and putting it in the second round with my main arguments would be a complete waste of space.--Opponent's rules--Rule I: My opponent's first rule is that first round is for acceptance, correct? If he does not expect me to present an argument, why did he do so himself in the very first sentence of this debate? Please consider this in the conduct section of the voting. Rule II: All facts must be backed up with sources. That means, I assume, that any fact that is NOT backed up with a source becomes false and the opposing side has the ability to call the other side out on it. With pro's wording, here is an example:High school dropouts are usually 16 (1).(1) www.hsdropouts.gov/homepage/obama/ (Not real link)High school dropouts are usually 16. That would be considered as a false fact and will not be needed to be argued against.With that said, let the debate commence!
Freedom of Speech in America. (good or bad)

Extend all arguments. I will repeat my three primary points which my opponent did not address nor refute. All three points stand as is and have been affirmed by me in previous rounds. 1. The Media & Freedom of Speech The primary problem with "Freedom of Speech" is the media. 2. The Mob & Freedom of Speech"Freedom of Speech" encourages mob behavior. 3. Order & Freedom of Speech"Freedom of Speech" encourages demagogues and other entities to decrease public order for their personal gain.
Freedom of Speech in America. (good or bad)

1. America is wealthy, FACT There is supposed to be an unemployment rate above 5% if my opponent didn't know. There is no economist who would ever suggest something as misleading as total employment. The unemployment isn't 10% either. The unemployment rate is 5.9%[1]. [1]http://www.latimes.com... Americans are wealthy beyond understanding. How many Americans actually have to worry about going hungry? The most impoverished states in America are the most obese states in America. [2]http://www.realclearscience.com... 2. Communication does not increase our freedom "Communication through internet and tv helps spread our opinions. Without any of these how would we know about Isis or north Korea. Sure in hell the government would not be knocking on each and every door telling us the world news." This is certainly not true. The Israelites knew about the Philistines and the Egyptians knew about the Hittites longer before television or the Internet was even thought of. The Holy Roman Empire knew about the Mongols long before television or the Internet as well. There are countless other examples I could list. I would also state this point is irrelevant. How do we benefit from this information? Is my opponent or I taking up arms against ISIL or North Korea? I doubt it, why would we need such information? "Freedom of speech gives you the right to debate me on this topic and for myself to fight for what I believe in." This is misleading. Debates have long existed before the thought of "Freedom of Speech." For example, the Greeks would often debate at the stoas.
Freedom of Speech in America. (good or bad)

My opponent sadly went off the topic and into wealth and communication. 1. America is not wealthy We have families on the street and 10% unemployment rate. How does this make us wealthy!? Yes we do have wealthy families, but does this close our eyes? No, they make them more open. We can speak and help thoughs families out. We can help the ill and the homeless. You forget to point out that the most wealth of families have also seen the horrible tragedy in the world and help. St.Jude children hospital was open by a famous actor for gods sake. Freedom of speech does not take away opportunities to help other, they give more options and make them more world know. 2. Communication increases our freedom Communication through internet and tv helps spread our opinions. Without any of these how would we know about Isis or north Korea. Sure in hell the government would not be knocking on each and every door telling us the world news. Freedom of speech gives you the right to debate me on this topic and for myself to fight for what I believe in.
Freedom of Speech in America. (good or bad)

My opponent did not respond to any of my claims. I will respond to her claims thoroughly. "Women are jailed for speaking out of turn to their husbands and men shot down for speaking their beliefs" How is violence surprising? In many countries when car accidents take place, it is common for people to get out in brawl. There is no rule of law. Unlike in the United States of America when a car accident happens, people politely ask to see license, car information, and wait till the emergency services to arrive. The United States and most Western countries are anomalies when it comes to violence. Majority of countries in the world are far more grim and more bitter places to live. In the United States, elected officials argue peaceably within the halls of Congress. Go to Taiwan or many other countries(India, Nigeria, Romania, etc.) where elected officials bring weapons into their legislatures to beat their opponents senseless. It even becomes more entertaining when they bear armor in a place where they are supposed to discourse and talk peacefully. http://www.youtube.com... Americans aren't becoming more open minded. Americans have become wealthy and absentminded. Wealthy people can afford to ignore problems in the world. There was a time when Americans used to engage violence a lot more often. In today's time, most Americans and I need not worry about politics because I can simply turn to MTV or go to Youtube to ignore what is taking place throughout my neighborhood and country. I am not a Christian so I will judge whomever I wish as I wish. I will not retreat from the world. People are "judged" for their beliefs and always will be. My opponent must "judge" otherwise they would be incapable of initiating this debate. It is called cognitive dissonance and all human beings will behave accordingly. Modern Americans are so wealthy they can afford to ignore other people. Imagine if there was no television and Internet. People actually would have to pay attention to what actually happens in the world. Television and Internet allows a person to go home and forget everything that took place that day. Take away television and the Internet, people would naturally engage in retrospection which would leave them far less happy about what happened. Then Americans would behave drastically different. My opponent has only offered conjecture. There has been no evidence provided thus far to show "Freedom of Speech" is "good." "Freedom of Speech" is good in theory and bad in practice in the United States of America. I have shown this multiple times in my arguments thus far. The resolution remains negated.
Freedom of Speech in America. (good or bad)

As we know that many countries do not have freedom of speech. Women are jailed for speaking out of turn to their husbands and men a shot down for speaking their beliefs. So many countries would love to have what we have, to speak. To speak our beliefs ,to speak our mind, and to speak what we want. Yes bullying does come into play with this freedom of speech, but is it that bad. So bad we have to take it away. Take away what many dream for. I have heard second hand the hardships and pain that people go through, just to have this freedom of speech. http://cpj.org... America is becoming more open minded, we are no longer in the dark ages. Today people can say their beliefs and not be judge or be judged, at least they can speak! Speak what they believe and want to. Homosexual can come out and not be jailed for loving someone and families no longer have to be ashamed or in hiding. Can you believe what we can achieve now!! so why should we take that away.
Obamacare (ACA) Should Be Replaced with a Single-Payer Healthcare System

I'm not sure if I'm doing this right... I believe in a single payer healthcare system first and foremost, because I believe that healthcare is human right and not just a privilege for the rich. I believe that it is wrong that some of the wealthiest Americans can get the best healthcare imaginable while for others they have none what-so-ever. According to Dr. Robert L Zarr, president of Physicians for a National Health Program, 1 person dies every 16 minutes in America due to not having access to healthcare. I believe that all Americans, rich or poor should have access to the same healthcare.
The KJV1611 Translation is best to use in the English Language

The KJV1611 is the best Translation to use in the English language. This is based on the Manuscripts it was translated from and that it agrees with the beliefs of the early Christian Church. As Con, it is up to you to present arguments why the KJV1611 is not the best English Translation to be used and why it would be inferior to other Translations. Please start from the first round to present your arguments. Thanks.
The Benefits of Smoking Actually Outweigh the Risks ( Take 2 )

*Con must have completed at least three debates prior to this one. Because of the subject matter, the arguer must be at least 18 years of age or older.To my surprise, I won this debate the last time I argued it ( as can be seen here: http://www.debate.org... ).Because of the subject matter, I want to have a second debate; I feel that, although I lean towards concurring with the majority of my arguments in the first debate, I still think the debate deserves a "second take" because of the generally held belief that smoking tobacco is seriously detrimental to the smoker's health. I may be recycling some of the arguments I used in the first debate, but I will do my best to use brand new arguments for this specific debate in order to keep the evidence fresh. To keep it fair though, my opponent may recycle some of the arguments used by the opponent I argued with in the first debate as seen in the link provided above, although the use of fresh, new arguments is strongly encouraged for this debate.This time, there will be five rounds, although the first round will only be for acceptance. Second round is for presenting arguments, and the rounds that follow will include the negative cross examinations and the rebuttals.
America, the essence.

Pro has still yet to make a valid argument. To outline some rebuttals however, I'd start off by addressing the lack of clarity in the debate. On the contrary to exploiting that, I view it as useful for Pro to be *told* that when choosing a resolution and a debate topic--it's important to make it as a clear as possible for the opponent. What was *not* clear is that Pro was referring to America (I.E the United States) in his resolution yet himself in his round one, which for obvious reasons automatically makes it perplexing. Pro states that on the basis that he's from America, his initial argument (which is rather more just one small sentence) is logically justified, when clearly it isn't and this once more a fallacy. Pros questioning as to myself being a 'second generation American' are also irrelevant, especially as I am absolutely not American and have never even visited the country. Again, it bares no relation to the resolution or indeed the topic that Pro is supposedly debating. As for Pros last sentence, evidently it doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever.
America, the essence.

I may not be America, however I was born in America, to AMERICAN CITIZENS. That is an undeniable fact. As far as defining exactly what my debate is about, if you didn't know, then what made you attracted to slaying my words? You are guilty of taking a debate that was unclear, in order to give yourself a win, I believe. Not that it matters, but one must wonder if you are a second generation American, or just another murderer of America, in order to give an anti Jesus countries zealots power by destroying Americans freedom. You took the debate, prove me wrong, get your vote in the win column, that's how it works. I could care less about winning, but Allah? Nope, not so much. Whatever.
torture

(1) I agree with this definition of torture. (2) It is not simply that the person is coerced into saying or doing what they don"t want to do. Breaking a person"s will should be more clearly explained. (3) This premise is too vague; there needs to be a definition of both morals and ethics. (4) Contrarily, ethics asks us to pay attention to something beyond ourselves. (5) There could be a possible situation where the lives of innocents can be saved, but maximalist torture is used instead of minimalist torture. (6) Since maximalist torture damages the victim"s autonomy and self-identity irretrievably, it is not morally justifiable. (7) Therefore all kinds of torture are not minimally morally justifiable uncontroversial- 1,2,3,5,6 controversial- the definition in premise 4 comes from the basics of ethics packet.
torture

(1) Torture is the intentional infliction of extreme physical and mental suffering on some non-consenting, defenseless, other person for the purpose of breaking their will. (2) The purpose of torture is to cause someone to cease to act in accordance with his or her own will and act in accordance to the will of the torturer. (3) What is moral is ethical. (4) Ethics is acting in accordance with what is right and wrong. (5) Cases where the lives of innocents can be saved such as bomb threats and car jacks with children in the car are cases where necessary minimalist torture is morally justifiable. (6) Necessary minimalist torture is morally justifiable. (7) Minimalist torture is torture in where the torturee can still physically and psychological functions after the torture occurs. (8) Torture is morally justifiable if presented with imminent threat to the life or lives of other. (9) Therefore torture is minimally morally justifiable. uncontroversial- 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 controversial- 5 is true because torture is minimalist when its for the purpose of saving lives.