BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Federalism would solve many of Africa's problems.

The motion of this debate still remains:federalism will solve many of Africa's problem. Since am arguing against this motion, it then means I can suggest what form of government that will solve their problem instead of federalism, thats why I suggested confederal system of government.so for my opponent to say I have ruined his debate, it means that he don't even understand the motion which he gave.Yes, the motion is that federalism would solve many problems. You should be arguing against federalism and not proposing and arguing a new resolution. My opponent restated that Africa is unstable place to live in.he even went further to give to give source, the source that stated failed nations instead of unstablility.The index is indeed about unstability. It is the rating on the chances of whether a country will fail or not. Which relates directly to stability. It even states that on the index. Lets use South Africa as an example.that particular state is developed and is one of the most stable place to live in.Even though it is the most stable place in Africa, it is still considered unstable overall, and is not as developed as you think. Further supporting my position, South Africa has adopted a unitary and Federal mixed government.http://maonitreatise.blogspot.com...http://www.law.berkeley.edu... Talk of Abuja,lagos,Ibadan and rest of them in Nigeria, it is suitable to live in.And guess what? Nigeria is a federal republic.
Federalism would solve many of Africa's problems.

The motion of this debate still remains:federalism will solve many of Africa's problem. Since am arguing against this motion, it then means I can suggest what form of government that will solve their problem instead of federalism, thats why I suggested confederal system of government.so for my opponent to say I have ruined his debate, it means that he don't even understand the motion which he gave. My opponent restated that Africa is unstable place to live in.he even went further to give to give source, the source that stated failed nations instead of unstablility. Lets use South Africa as an example.that particular state is developed and is one of the most stable place to live in. Talk of Abuja,lagos,Ibadan and rest of them in Nigeria, it is suitable to live in. What determines the stability of a state? Is it their economy? Or social stratification? All this are not lagging in number of African states. My opponent gave a faulty premise. Where he defined confederalism.he said,A confederation is a alliance or merger of countries.but then,confederalism is A union of states in which each member state retains some independent control over internal and external affairs. Thus, for international purposes, there are separate states, not just one state.what am I trying to say, that confederalism is the best in africa because of its multi cultural nature and federalism has made it difficult for rotation of powers. My opponent is yet to rebut any of my arguments starting from my first to last. Before I rest my case, let me address this, confederalism has not lasted for 2ooyears just like my opponent said. NIGERIA made use of this confederalism in 1914-1991 and there is rotation of power in the geo political zones. Sources:parrotnewpaper.com, allafricannewspaper.com, freeonlinedictionary.com.
Federalism would solve many of Africa's problems.

Africa is instable place to live. Thats a practical lie. Because in Africa, there are tons of countries with different weather condition and with different system of government which operates within state it governs.Africa is most certainly a unstable place to live. Pretty much every nation.http://ffp.statesindex.org...Also, my opponent said that there are coups every month, without even given source of information. I checked Ghana as a country in Africa, and result has shown that for the past 5years, there is no coup and also in Nigeria, for the past 14years, there is no coup.Africa as a whole suffers from many coups. maybe not every month, but certainly a lot. Not having a coup in 14 years is not a good track record. Nations can't afford shifts in government every 100 years. http://users.ox.ac.uk... due to the multi-cultural states in Africa, confederal system of government should be adopted.I was not aware you were going to make a proposal. This is not what is being debated, but I will argue it anyways. http://www.vocabulary.com...http://dictionary.reference.com...http://www.thefreedictionary.com...A confederation is a alliance or merger of countries. In what way will more alliances fix Africa's problems? Not to mention that not a single confederation exists today. That there should be a confederal system of government, whereby the 6geo political zones will be giving autonomous power with a weak centre so that they can rule within their pace without the central government interfering. This litteraly does nothing to help Africa. Countrys need a strong federal government that can enact change. Your proposing a breakup of Sudan into 9 different countries. This will not work. In America, we once had a thing called the Articles Of Confederation. It enacted a confederal government. Within weeks of our independence there were mass riots and rebbelions. http://history.state.gov...y opponent do not know that there is quite a difference between the federal and confederal system of government. He wil define federal system and later will be using confederal system of government.I wish my opponent would not insult my intelligence before I get a chance to respond. Yes, I do know the difference between confederations and federations, and I know one does not work. You have ruined my debate by arguing something so off topic. The debate was whether African nations should adopt federalism. Not some proposed confederation idea, which has not been used for 200 years.
Federalism would solve many of Africa's problems.

The problem with my opponent is this, he layed faulty premise, and moreover,voicing all sorts of false information without proof. Let me start with rebutals. My opponent said:...Africa is instable place to live. Thats a practical lie. Because in Africa, there are tons of countries with different weather condition and with different system of government which operates within state it governs. When you mentioned Africa, you mean all the states(country) is not stable to live in, dear, thats a fallacy.if you insist, give source of information and ponder on that. Also, my opponent said that there are coups every month, without even given source of information. I checked Ghana as a country in Africa, and result has shown that for the past 5years, there is no coup and also in Nigeria, for the past 14years, there is no coup. So please stop giving faulty assumptions. I move into my argument. My premise is this: due to the multi-cultural states in Africa, confederal system of government should be adopted. Ponder:Nigeria as a nation has over 250ethnic groups with 6geo political zones and in every election, there is selection.dailysun.com .owing to the fact that there is majority in this political zone more than the minority ones and yet there is federalism in that country. Every year, the minority will like to rule but the majority will use their population to retard this vision. What am I trying to say? That there should be a confederal system of government, whereby the 6geo political zones will be giving autonomous power with a weak centre so that they can rule within their pace without the central government interfering. My opponent do not know that there is quite a difference between the federal and confederal system of government. He wil define federal system and later will be using confederal system of government. Let me clarify you, FEDERALISM:a system of government inwhich individual states have control over their own pace but are controlled by central governmment for national decision. CONFEDERAL:a system inwhich zones control their pace without the interference of the central government. Punch.com, onlinenews.com, ebbc.com. I await my opponents speech
women in church

You understand where i'm coming from, thanks, so do I. My argument is that woman should not teach, women are part of christs body, absolutely, women should prophesy, pray, etc. Women are the emotional creatures, men are more of a thinking animal, the woman was decieved not man, this is a massive issue. Eve saw the apple was pleasing to the eye, it was good. Women pick up more "vibes" are more in touch with their feelings,to womans credit, but this can open women to subtle deception.
women in church

I understand where you are coming from, firstly I'm going say women should be let into church in any role. Now your question of interpreting any scripture in the bible to mean something else, because we don't like it. Well my answer is yes but not because of whether we like it or not, anyone can interpret the scripture in anyway they want. The scripture is clear no matter how wrong it may be. But why do you interpret the scripture the way you do, is it cause you believe it or the bible says it.
Abortion

3. Right to life is appointed to everyone and everything even pets. Why do you think people where POed at Michael Vick when he was doin dog fights 5. theory your website is a theory not a fact, that makes your evidense invaild 6. I never said anything about chemistry, when the babies heart beats that when people know that you're pregnet. 8. abortion isn't ethical just look at Wade V. Boggs 14. you said that abortion lowers chance of reat cancer well you're wrong it raises it by 130% after an abortion now I'm sure women don't want breast cancer if I'm wrong please tell me http://www.deveber.org... a1. first of all know one ever, why don't you tell the aduiance about FAILED ABORTIONS hum?! a2. my opponet hasn't refuted my adoption alternartive a3. with a failed abortion may lead to a prom night dumpster baby. http://www.youtube.com... my attacks. 1. women face emotional difficultis. 2. abortions that fail will lead to several birth defects and defects for the mother 3. increases breast cancer rate by 130% 4. After an abortion, women are more likely to display self-destructive behaviors including suicide 5. lead to depression and guilt for men. 6. abortion reserch is inacurate. my source for this is http://www.deveber.org... thank you and have a happy Martin Luther Day
Abortion

1. if there is a pregnacy than God intended it to happen. Nothing in the world can happen without God's approval. 2. Yes some are home made just look at the depression when families couldn't afford children so they drink, do like in the video in the 1st round, or some other satanitc way. 3. The natural rights are life, liberty, and property and all of these things are in the U.S. Constitution. So therefore an abortion is actualy illegal by law. 4. Okay then 5. I was just quoting him 6. adoption is always a choice no one said you've had to raise the kid. You know give it a beter future then no future at all. eh? 7. The fetus has several struggles to even become life. like to avoid WBC's or even Viruses. 8. adoption, sorry writting paper read this for more details, http://www.americanadoptions.com... 9. Wade V. Boggs upheld and prooved abortion should be illegal 1a. that my friend is why abortion is bad so that techinally prooved why abortion is wrong. 2a. that just says that deaths per birth have fell... with age comes expirance. 3a. adoption my friend adopition 4a. wow is all I have to say there is a reason it is illegal. people don't know how to do it right. 6a. what about the guilt that fallows the abortion you can't stop that. 7a. what do you say to the Catholic Families that have 5 kids and DON"T HAVE BREAST CANCER. I know, because I'm invovled in a large family
Abortion

1. then people shouldn't do it... or at least were a condom 2. In the depression people made home made abortions. I don't know how to get videos on here so just put this url link up. (no pun intended) http://www.youtube.com... 3. What about the basic human rights. The right to live. It is inbeded in the Constitution so abortion would all-in-all be against the law. 4. post-abortion stress. my source for this is, http://postabortionsyndrome.org..., 5. now here's the pun, LordKnuckle said, "I see everyone for abortion has already been born." 6. How would you feel if you'd been aborted. Nothing cause you wouldn't of existed. 7. The baby is alive when the heart first beats. 8. What would happen if some of the greatest people in history were aborted. overval sources: http://www.youtube.com... http://postabortionsyndrome.org...
Abortion

Point 1: The prohibition of abortion will just make more deaths due to abortion. It will be in the same fashion as the prohibition on alcohol in the 1920s. The prohibition of abortion will lead some women to seek "underground" doctors, who will abort illegally. These doctors are usually dangerous for mother and baby. So instead in the style of a regular abortion where only the baby dies, under these circumstances, the chances of the woman dying skyrocket. Point 2: Prohibiting abortion will just increase crime and poverty. The kind of people that abort are either young or poor. The young will not take care of the baby for society has already cast her out. She will get rid of the baby. The poor will not take care of the baby either. Because poor tends to breed poor. Crime tends to breed crime. If the woman does not abort, the baby could grow up into a criminal, or live an under-privaliged childhood. The baby would be better off not being born. Plus, chances are high that he or she will be murdered when they are older if they are poor and live in a bad part of town. Point 3: Every woman has rights. Being able to abort is one of them. Rebuttal?
Homosexuality

Actually, there a lot more books out there that are historically accurate. In fact, the entire Bible was based off Gilgamesh. However, neither of them are accurate because it is an accepted fact that there is no such thing as talking animals. And as for it is not normal for it to happen, well think of it this way. Evolution has always been self governed and kills off species to regulate populations. Let us say that the gay gene was meant to regulate and was very good, not just for humans because all species have the gay gene. Gay animals cannot reproduce, so they stop family lines, regulating population. Like it or not, being gay is an evolutionary benefit, overwatching overpopulation. This theory explains why there are more percentages of gay people now that we are overpopulated.
Homosexuality

I am a Christian, and Homosexuality is not Godly. I saw recently in one of your debates that you had mentioned a gay gene. Do you have any proof to back this up? Also, this so called gay gene could have been introduced at the fall when the world was corrupt. God specifically states that man and woman were to be together in Genesis 2:22-24. He also says that we should get rid of any sexual immorality we have in the New Testament in 1 Corinthians 7:2. Homosexual people were not meant to be at all, which should be obvious because they can't sexually reproduce. This is NOT to say I hate homosexuals, but I do detest their continuous sinful lifestyle.
Homosexuality

Actually, Gilgamesh is a secular source of what happened in the Bible. Gilgamesh was written based off of the true events that happened, and so was the Bible. Also, if this gay gene was supposed to regulate population, it is not doing a good job of it now. If you do say we are seeing more gays now because of evolution, then why hasn't any other part of us evolved? The evolutionary explanation I have heard from others is that we are at a break of evolution, so if the gay gene really is coming out and nothing else is happening, that means that we are already fully evolved, which is obviously wrong.
"The god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction:..."

"...jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. Those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desensitized to their horror. - Richard Dawkins Though I really do not follow Richard Dawkins, here he's 100% correct. Your job as Con in this debate is to prove that god is kind, caring and just. ;- Nightwish The Greatest Show on Earth
"The god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction:..."

* I do not communicate with someone who is out there to "win".* I most certainly do not communicate with someone who believes in a homicidal maniac as being just and fair, especially in killing innocent children and babies for whatever reason in any way, shape or form. And even worse you being as patheic and as ridiculous as you truly are trying in any way to justify it when there is no justification for ir. So you can be disappointed all you want.* You should be disappointed within yourself. And knee deep in it.Oh and btw, I didn't read passed that you were dissapointed within me, no need. I don't need your astounding crawling worming humility. I can easily rise above creatures like you. The end.
Should we be sympathetic to the cause of refugees and asylum seekers

Sadly, the refugees come from an ideology that is commanded to destroy us. They come from an ideology that commands them to lie to us and espionage us. This very group of people was welcomed with open arms. In one night they sexually assaulted over 1,000 German women in one night. We have to make sure that never happens here in the U.S.We are obligated to protect our ladies as American men. We have the responsibility as parents to protect our children. As Americans we are responsible for protecting each other. It isn't nice or lovely, but evil does exist, and an evil ideology exists that does not want to coexist. We have the right to deny it any leverage, power, or place in our society.
Should we be sympathetic to the cause of refugees and asylum seekers

Muslim declares "Islam is not a religion of peace." http://youtu.be... Muslim tells us what the penalty for apostasy is in Islam. Surprise, surprise. It is Death... http://youtu.be... Norway took in refugees and Islamic immigrants. The rape epidemic became so bad that blonde Norwegian women started dying their hair black as a disguise. http://youtu.be... When Islamic immigrants/regugees see things that don't fit their worldview, they go crazy. In this case they took over a theatre, yelled "Allahu Akbar!" Over and over, and attacked police. http://youtu.be... Poland tried it. Looks like they didn't like it. (The 150,000 anti-Islam march) http://youtu.be... Here, a crowd of Muslim refugees is offered food and water. Instead of taking it, they boo and hiss and throw things at the officers trying to help them. Why? The supplies were no halal... http://youtu.be... Here they don't want bottled water that officers offer them as they get off of the train, so they begin tossing it onto the train tracks in disgust. How dare someone offer them food and water! http://youtu.be... Germany opened their arms to these "refugees". In one night over 1,000 women reported being sexually assaulted in one night. It was labeled as "Rape jihad". If one know Islam they know full well infidel women are "fair game". Even better. If they can catch and capture an infidel woman, they can keep her as a sex slave, rape her at their will, and beat her. Why? Muhhamed said to in the Quran. http://youtu.be... Hungarians gave them asylum, so what happened? The Muslims through rocks at them. http://youtu.be... I'll just put the truth out there, and say it how it is. The Quran says to kill us. The Quran says to rape our women. The Quran says Muslims are "superior" to all nonmuslims. The Quran says to treat us like the "pigs and apes" that we are. The Quran says you can take yourself some infidel sex slaves. The Quran to destroy us. The Quran says to outbreed us, infiltrate us, and intermix with us, and spread Islam in conquest over the entire Earth and by force. The entire world is to be under Sharia Law according to Islam. http://youtu.be...
Should we be sympathetic to the cause of refugees and asylum seekers

I think we should be sympathetic about the cause of refugees. There is many basic human rights that are being taken away from these people such as the right to education, shelter, food and water. This has been an ongoing war since 2011 they need our help. These people can also benefit the country by many ways, such as employment, economic growth etc. Any such people we should definitely take in and protect. If it's a matter of being symaptheic then there's no question! They're scared and helpless, so we should help them, give them a second chance at life. It makes sense.
Violence is Wrong

BackgroundThis debate is probably best described as an ongoing philosophical discussion between sdavio and myself regarding the nature of politics. Sdavio began his existence on this website with a staunchly moral libertarian position that not only advocated the non-aggression principle, but saw it as a means to decrease violence on aggregate, violence being considered immoral in his world view. I understand my position in this debate can easily be considered either an extreme devil's advocate position, or something that is prima facie immoral. I aim to convince audiences otherwise. I will do this by divorcing violence from moral considerations. ResolutionViolence is Wrong(CON aims to prove that violence is neither necessarily right nor wrong)Definitions I think both PRO/CON would appreciate leaving the definition of violence as debatable, so I will not post a definition as a necessary, binding condition for accepting this debate. I expect much of this debate to explore exactly what it means to be violent. Wrong - ImmoralRulesMy standard boiler-plate:This will be a NO SCORING debate. I am far less concerned with the scoring mechanism of this website, and much more interested in furthering constructive dialogue on this matter. I see the scoring mechanism as being extremely politicized and subject to all manners of corruption, and also see it as an inhibitor to constructive dialogue as many people who vote simply do not want their vote challenged or discussed. Anyone and everyone is more than welcome to make a decision on this debate, declare a victor, and leave (hopefully) an insightful RFD, I merely ask that no one score this debate. I will make exception to the scoring of conduct. Any forfeited rounds, ad hominem attacks, or breaching of the rules of this debate will merit a conduct point against the offender. Otherwise, no scoring, thank you. I really don't expect there to be any issues. .. sdavio is generally the paragon of good conduct here, lol. ---Burden of proof (BoP) is shared.5 rounds1st round: CON: introduction and debate parameters, PRO: opening arguments2/3/4 rounds argument and rebuttal5th round: CON: closing arguments, PRO: "This round left blank. " This will allow for 4 full rounds of debate by both sides.6,000 character rounds.
Abortion

I accept. Though I'd like to provide a definition for "abortion" and clarify my stance on the issue. Abortion: the termination of a pregnancy by removing the fetus or embro from the woman's uterus before it can survive. In most states, abortion is legal up to around 20 weeks (if I did my research correctly) unless it poses a serious health risk for the woman, in which case exceptions are made to this rule. I will be arguing that we not change the status quo on this issue and that abortion continue to be legal up to around this period of pregnancy.