BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Who was the best U.S. President? II

1. New Deal: Many people argue this was a poor economic plan which was all created by FDR. This point is debatable, though it is pretty easy to back it up. If you want me to, I will next round. 2. Japanese-American internment camps: This was really messed up. In fact, one of the only things I will admit was a shameful part of American history, and that's saying something (refer to my username). Here's the story: After Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941, people, mainly in the government, were suspicious of Japanese-Americans, mainly immigrants from Japan. The fear was that these people could be spies for the Japanese government and that they could be plotting attacks from the inside. So, in order to calm those fears, many Japanese-Americans were held in internment camps. FDR was partly responsible for this decision. 3. Rejection from allies: Many allies and appointees of FDR turned against him, even his own VP: John N. Garner. Others include brain truster Raymond Moley, Postmaster General James A. Farley, and Ambassador Joseph Kennedy (fun fact: he was JFK's dad). I know this says practically nothing about his performance as a president, but his performance as a person. More next round.
Who was the best U.S. President? II

This is the same as my last debate with the same title, but I started it over again because last time my opponent ultra-forfeited. So, here's how it works: Round 1: Acceptance and you tell me who you think the best president was. Round 2: I give reasons why he was not the best and you give reasons why he was the best. Round 3: I counter your arguments and make further ones. You do the same. Round 4: Same as above Round 5: Final arguments and concluding statements.
Morality is Objective

The minimum voting Elo rating is 2500. DefinitionsMorality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Feeling or opinion: preference. Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. The BoP is on Pro - he must show that morality is Objective. Any failure to do so will result in Con being awarded the win.
Morality is Objective

My opponent fails to frame this accurately – the statement “blue cars are superior to red cars” is meaningless until a standard of value is introduced. That much is agreeable. The disconnect in my opponent’s argument, though, comes from the fact that he fails to recognize that the only valid standard by which to judge the morality of actions is reason, and reason is objective. If the interaction between the light reflected off of a car and processed by the eyeball of a human results in a pleasant feeling, this is no more subjective than to say that the Law of Gravity mandates that things fall to the earth in normal conditions. It would be absurd to say that a man who gains pleasure from the color blue can subjectively, without any basis in physical fact, decide to enjoy red. It would be equally absurd to say that the man who prefers blue is acting in a rational manner by looking exclusively at less-enjoyable red cars. The statement “blue cars are superior to red cars” is imprecise. It would be much more accurate to say that “blue cars are superior to red cars for x”, where x is a valuer, which is an undebatable point. Even if it is the case that things like this are decided on an individual level, they are still subject to be evaluated by reason, as in the examples given in my last paragraph. The so-called “individual subjective preference” is, in fact, unchangeable, absolute, and objective because of the qualities of an unchanging outside world and the laws that govern it that are not affected by subjective whims. My opponent makes a fine case up and until the point that he claims that there is no objective justification for believing that the alien race acts immorally. Simply from the fact that they believe that killing babies is moral, there is no reason to believe that they are right in this. In fact, given the arguments I made in Round 1, I have shown that to say that people like the aliens, who think that x is moral, and people like most humans, who think that x is immoral, can both be simulatiously right violates the basic axioms of reason. If morality necessarily rests on reason, and if it is unreasonable to assume that two contradictory views are both right (2 + 2 cannot equal both 4 and 20 at the same time), then one side must be objectively right (since reason has no place for subjective whims). I want to make it clear, once again, that I do not need to show which side is right and the reasoning for that conclusion – I just need to show that one side must be objectively right and the other objectively wrong. Since all morality must come from reason, and since reason is, in itself, not open to preferences, then all morality must be rooted in objective truths.
LeBron vs. Jordan

I hope my opponent returns to this debate for the next round, I'll be pretty sad if I have to just keep extending this debate. As I stated before, Michael Jordan's influence on the game of basketball and his tenacity as a player far outweigh LeBron's athleticism and size. I continue to hope for a debate, but I would like to remind voters that a forfeit results in the loss of at least the conduct point for this debate. Thank you!
society values Beauty over Brains

being not physically attractive doesn't make you least worthy than anyone else it just that efforts needs to be doubled no matter what others think , afcourse if you act like someone who is better it will piss off some people even though that wasn't your intention especially people who's trying to stand-out using their own appearances, you simply have to stick to the way you do things and be yourself ....and just so you know people who are asking these kind of questions are the ones being bullied, no confidence or simply looks down on themselves
society values Beauty over Brains

I must say that I do agree. One of the most attractive things to me is intelligence. I myself love to read which has made me a successful student at my school but sadly people now believe that you have to be physically attractive to be notice. I have seen it with my own eyes that even 11 year old's like to make themselves seem "beautiful". I myself am the only girl in my high school who doesn't where make up or have long hair. It also frustrates me that all the men drool over the girls who care about there curves. Not every one believes that girls have to be beauty queens, in fact actor Ashton Kutcher believes that to be sexy is to be smart. He said it himself at the teens choice award. Also there is no achievement in being beautiful where as being smart takes time and dedication but that doesn't matter to the world. The sad truth is that a supermodel, who just walks on a cat walk in a bikini, makes more money than a neurosurgeon, who is saving peoples lives. Tell me where is the fairness in that. So god help me get through to these people.
society values Beauty over Brains

A good brain is beautiful. Knowledge is not the same as intelligence. If a person just wanted beauty from a partner, they could buy a blow-up friend. If they want a soul mate, a creative lover and a trusted confidante, there is no substitute for a good brain. I want a relationship with the whole, intelligent person - not just an obsession with their outer layer of skin. And I would never want a partner who was obsessed with their own concept of beauty. If they love themselves that much, there is no space left for me. afcourse most People are just hypocritical. They say that inner beauty is more important than outer beauty, and then the media goes insane over beautiful, famous singers, models, actresses etc. "But not everyone can be beautiful" If you're referring to natural beauty, then I agree. However if you aren't, then I disagree. Everyone that has money can be beautiful, just go get plastic surgery and put on makeup and you pretty much look like a celebrity. So to answer your question, "is beauty better than brains?" I wouldn't say it's "better" because there are a lot of pretty people out there that aren't even celebrities or make millions of dollars in a job. They have regular jobs just like any other average or ugly looking person. Although, I will say that it is generally noticeable that beautiful people have it easier than ugly people, whether that be socializing, finding a job, getting around, basically anything that has to do with human interaction. People have the magnetic tendency to grow fond to those who are beautiful. Not only that, but we also have the tendency to remember more information about them. In short, my answer is that it's not better. A balance between beauty and brains is the best option for success. Beautiful with no brains = You will probably get in trouble a lot because of your tendency to do stupid things by media influence. i.e. Drugs, drinking and driving Brains with no beauty = Can be successful but you'd need to be VERY intelligent to come up with a new idea, invention, etc.
society values Beauty over Brains

Why is it that the modern woman values make up over a good book. why is it that people prefer the company of someone of the other sex and why do they have to meet each other in the bed. WHY do modern women rely on beauty to get them through life when the world was made a marvelous place by the people who actually THOUGHT BEAUTY over BRIANS that is a the biggest load of crap i have ever heard Challenge me if you dare but be warned I do intend to USE my BRAIN to win this you might not want to do this though i am a tough oponent
Bad Reputations For Pit Bulls

Starting with Bad Reputations For Pit Bulls. Pit Bulls only kill if that is what they are taught to do. Think of a child. You teach and raise that child to kill, that's what they will do, teach and raise that child to love, protect, and cherish, that's what they will do. Blame the teacher. Not the student. I know your thinking that not all students put in the hard work to learn and obey, but you have to be willing to put in your all. Don't give up trying to teach them to behave, because if you give up, you are just showing them that you don't really care. I also understand that there have been very sad events of people dying from the Pit Bull breed, but with that being said, have you even taken one minute to try and figure out WHY the dog did what they did? Do you even care about the story behind it, or do you want to take the easy way out and just assume that the dog did it just because it wanted to? Let me ask you a serious question, would you believe me if I told you that Pit Bulls (and other dogs) ,some even since birth, were thrown into dog fighting rings as what dog fighters and other people call "bait dogs" . I dare you to look up pictures of bait dogs. How many that you see are Pit Bulls? All I ask is to stop assuming that it is always the Pit Bulls fault, because I can almost 100% guarantee you that it isn't their fault. Excuse my language but, if you got off your a** for once and actually looked into the background of that Pit Bull I'm sure you would understand their, dare I say 'reasoning' behind their aggression.
The Exclusionary Rule in the United States

My opponent has provided a good introduction of the exclusionary rule. It is worth noting that, within the scope of this debate, someone trying to obtain evidence illegally will ALWAYS be caught. The exclusionary rule can only be applied to evidence that is known to have been obtained illegally. Through responding to my opponent's case, my own position will become clear. ======== Contention 1: The exclusionary rule destroys all incentive for police officers to obtain illegal evidence. While potentially helpful, this is not necessary. Those who illegally obtained the evidence would not go unpunished; lawful punishment is enough of a disincentive in every other scenario, so why not in court cases? The exclusionary rule may provide additional effectiveness, but I contend that it is not really necessary. In a scenario in which someone is willing to illegally obtain evidence, the reasons surely must be significant. ======== Contention 2: The exclusionary rule (as opposed to the other method) has the most respect for the constitutional rights. This is a much more interesting contention, but is still deeply flawed. The alternative to the exclusionary rule (let's call in the inclusionary rule) does not violate the fourth amendment. Even under the inclusionary rule, unwarranted search and seizure is prohibited by law and will be accordingly punished. People's freedoms are still just as protected. After all, our society got along just fine without the exclusionary rule for over a hundred years (. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...). But at the same time, the exclusionary rule is counterproductive to a court case. An estimated 55,000 criminals are released each year [1] simply because of the exclusionary rule. The judicial system has a responsibility to protect society against these criminals, and by enforcing the exclusionary rule it is failing to do so. The crime of illegally obtaining evidence will still be rightfully punished; but to ignore any evidence, legally obtained or not, is irresponsible. [1] Edwin Meese III, "A Rule Excluding Justice," New York Times, April 15, 1983. . http://www.nytimes.com...
The Bible cannot be "God's Word" due to this:

I will quote you before I comment to make this less confusing. "not much to say. you can't be the arbiter of truth, in that it's wrong because you say it is." I never said I was the arbiter of truth but it is not difficult to recognize what is NOT true which is what this debate is about. " i dont like it either, but it doesnt mean the bible is necessarily contradictory or wrong." Except that it is contradictory. I have already shown that God punished people for the sins of others while showing in Deuteronomy that God is not supposed to do that. What exactly about this is not contradictory? "the deuteronmy passage i concede is a very powerful point." Exactly. " id guess that references individual deaths, like stoning someone cause his dad committed adultery." Which is exactly what God is not supposed to do according to his own law in Deut. 24:16. " if it's a group sin punishment, that's different." Again, there is no such thing as a "group" sin. A group is not of one mind. Only one mind at a time can decide to do right or wrong. " you still can't get around all the examplesthat are inherent in christianity, noah, Jesus and God, adam and eve's kids, sodom an gamorrah etc." Huh? "it's possible christianity is true and these passages are false truths," With all due respect, did you read what you just wrote? False truths? You did not answer nearly every issue I brought up from the opening debate to my last post. You have not said how a freshly born completely innocent child can commit a sin. You have not answered how a God who says he cannot lie did lie. You have been ignoring the cental issues of this debate. By me showing that God sinned by his own definition of sin, he cannot be a savior to anyone by being the perfect sinless sacrificial offering. If God cannot do that, then the Bible is untrustworthy and cannot be regarded as God's word to mankind.
The Bible cannot be "God's Word" due to this:

not much to say. you can't be the arbiter of truth, in that it's wrong because you say it is. i dont like it either, but it doesnt mean the bible is necessarily contradictory or wrong. the deuteronmy passage i concede is a very powerful point. id guess that references individual deaths, like stoning someone cause his dad committed adultery. if it's a group sin punishment, that's different. you still can't get around all the examplesthat are inherent in christianity, noah, Jesus and God, adam and eve's kids, sodom an gamorrah etc. it's possible christianity is true and these passages are false truths, but i see no reason why that necessarily must be so.
The Bible cannot be "God's Word" due to this:

as i said in my initial post, God only has folks attacked who themselves sinned, or who's parents/communities sinned. it's foundational to christiainty that kids suffer the consequences for their parents sins, God and Jesus, Adam/Eve and their kids, first borns of Jews, Abraham's son almost got it, and further the communities, Sodom and Gamorrah, the great flood, the city where "if there's twenty good will you obliterate it? if there's fifteen, if there's ten" etc etc. if you dont accept this stuff, then christianity is just not for you. i actually agree that it's not what id desire, and i'm christian, but i acknowledge my ways are not necessarily the optimal ways. it's not that im not knowlegeable. even my last post showed some examples. i asked for examples of God blantatntly killing o having killed innocent people. in every example you've shown and that i know of, there was some sort of sins involved, be it from the community or from parents etc.
The Bible cannot be "God's Word" due to this:

<> I do not know what this confusing first paragraph of your has to do with my side of the debate so my response to that is ??????????????????????? <> So you are asking for examples of God having innocent people killed? I was really hoping to debate with someone who had a stronger biblical knowledge than this but I guess it is my fault for not emphasizing that. I guess I will continue. Every time you see someone getting killed in the Bible who had nothing to do with the crime that led to God's death sentence, you have the killing of innocent people. I already pointed out one in 1 Chronicles so let me hand you a few more: 1. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3) 2. He orders another attack and the killing of "all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses" (Joshua 6) 3. God strikes dead the child of Bathsheba in Samuel 12:18 but killing the 7 day old child was not good enough for God. He made the child sick and suffer for those 7 days...and for what? Because DAVID committed adultery. He punished the child for the actions of the parents. How loving. I don't know how many examples you would like but I think one is enough. There are numerous examples of God commanding the Israelites to kill every man, woman, child and pregnant woman. This debate was assuming you already knew this as most Christians admit to knowing this. If you are still unconvinced about God killing innocent people, then there is not much left to discuss. This debate is about the impossibility of God being a sinner and also dying for your sins.
The Bible cannot be "God's Word" due to this:

any example of God requesting people be killed, involves sin. either sin of that person, or sin of the person's father/community. as with God allowing Jesus to be killed, the spirit that killed the first borns unless blood was smeared on the front door, God asking but backing out of having abraham to kill his son. etc. the transferrence nature of sin and its consequnces simply must be accepted as part of Jewish/christian life. if you could find God having straight up innocent people killed, you might have something. as of now, you dont.
Women Workplace Discrimination

In response ti my opponent, the numbers are there, so I encourage people to more closely review my data as well, especially my opponent.Also, yes, workplace discrimination is ridiculously difficult to prove in court. This has little bearing on its existence.The rest of my opponent’s argument last round was either illogical or irrelevant.As a quick follow-up on the Wal-Mart Story, women at Wal-Mart are rated better, across the board in every position, when comparing their performance to men, and yet they also make less money across the board and are only promoted 50% as often as men are.[1]I’ll leave the remainder of my argument to these visuals. This is the state of women’s wages in Washington State. Men earn more than Women in EVERY INDUSTRY, including industries dominated by women such as education and healthcare.[2] This is every industry in the US. Women make less in every one. My apologies to my oponent, but I’ve been busy and I slept in this morning and I wanted to present something as opposed to forfeit.I will sum up next round.Sources:[1]http://www.walmartclass.com...[2]http://stateofworkingwa.org...
Women Workplace Discrimination

Resolved: A significant portion of the wage gap in America is due to employers' unfair discriminating based of gender. An insignificant would be defined as three cents difference for every dollar. I am CON. Debate rules:1. No semantics.2. First Round for acceptance, and rule and definition clearification only.3. No new arguments in the last round.4. Text-only debate.5. All source material must be easily accessable
Rap battle practice 3

Sung to the tune of Eddie Cochran's "Summertime Blues" He said he wants to beat me up without any provocation! Just because I agreed to debate in this super stupid fashion! You really are an idiot, an imbecile too You say, "Oh, I'm so much better than you." But violence and threats won't get you anywhere I'm going to win and you're gonna feel despair! Do do do do. Do do do do. You think you're super cool and really super magical Just because you make allusions to Greek periods classical! I'll tell you right now, you're really not that smart. You say, "Oh, you're gonna say fart." Actually I wasn't. I'm not that immature. I'm going to win and you're gonna eat your fur! Do do do do. Do do do do. You think you can win by making me dead! You think you can win by getting into my head! that's not the way to fight, I'm really quite sure! You say, "It isn't? Learning's such a stupid chore." Your gory allegory just doesn't scare me. I've got you outnumbered, from ten zillion to three! Do do do do. Do do do do. I bet you want to know my secret, you want to win. I'll tell you right now where you can begin. Use more than one poetic form, be more pleasing to the ear! You say, "Oh, oh, I'm your greatest fear!" You're not, and even if I don't use normal rap, AT least, unlike your own rap, my rap isn't crap! Do do do do. Do do do do. Do do do do. Do do do do.
Rap battle practice 3

(You wanna write a poem? I'ma write a story Becareful though because right here, it may get a little gory) I walk down the park, straight into the alley Over there I see a man, his name is Franky He looks like he is crying, I give him a hanky He glares at me though so instead, I give him a spanky Screams and chaos, bloodshot eyes I pay close attention, that was when I realize He and his friends have lead through really hard lives Now his friends are gone and inside he slowly dies He leans against me and begins to cry Tells me his whole life is a lie I can't help but begin to feel bad for him Look at his malnutritioned body, it's less than slim Suddenly he collapses his muscles weak I am sorry to say his health has reached it's peak Just as I am about to set him down, rest in peace He attacks me strength restored like the work of the Golden Fleece I have to roll out of the way as he screamed "Why didn't you let me die just like I dreamed?" "Now I gotta kill you, is my life like it seems? Wants to die, get's saved, like a bad meme!" I feel betrayed and anger all of a sudden I combine my bars, feel the power rush in I rise from the ground ready to crush him He wants to die? FINE! If really he wants it The night sky flickers as lightning flashes Hits a plane crashes, he burns to ashes Spewing rhymes coursed by adrenaline better than Cashis He whips out a knife, uselessly slashes But I'm invulnerable now, I'm in my own storm I concentrate, shape it, as it tales form I'm a giant then a titan then as big as the Colossus I'm the world on top of Atlas, you are the smallest I whip down, blast him with all my might Until in his eyes, I don't see the light I spit at your corspe, wasn't even a fight Turning around, I'm walking home, into the night.