BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We can't know anything for certain

Thank you for responding to my debate.......... As stated I am arguing that we can know something for certain which refutes your claim of we can't know anything for certain "We cannot know anything for certain because there always be someone who contradicts you, no matter what what you say will never be true for someone else". (whether something can be known is NOT dependent on if some one else dis agrees with you) You have given other situations where knowledge is not certain, I will concede those situations, but you have to concede that just because there are some situations where knowledge is not certain does NOT prove all situations equal knowledge is uncertain I have 2 questions for you........... you claim "I can and will argue every thing you tell me to prove you can't know anything for sure." 1) So am I correct to believe that I can be certain you will disagree with me on everything I say ? 2) You claim we can't know anything for certain , are you certain of this claim ?
We can't know anything for certain

We cannot know anything for certain because there always be someone who contradicts you, no matter what what you say will never be true for someone else. Example: If you tell me that you know for sure that your name is Sean, well I can tell you that if one day I call you Nicholas then your name is Nicholas. If you tell me that you know for sure that you are alive, how do you know it's not just a dream and that when you wake up, if you wake up, you'll be dead. I can and will argue every thing you tell me to prove you can't know anything for sure.
Sexuality is not a choice

But you know what's one thing that's wrong with your answer that clearly your not seeing is the word "Equality" in all of this, why does it have to take years and years for same sex marriage to be approved... And the example with your brother, yeah in that situation he chose what he wanted to live with and deal with for those 5 years... And you say I only see the hateful things, becuase that's all there is hate hate hate for the lgbt community... Yes a person may. Choose that lifestyle but most of them try to change and force themselves... Being straight is okay but being gay is horrible wrong... And here is a another example. Just like blacks and whites, were all the same right its just the color of your skin you can't choose to be black or white its how you end up. And that is the exact same with sexual orientation straight peole are treated equal but gay people have to sit at the back of the bus, just like white and blacks. Going back to my beginning statement you said I only see the one thing, want to know why because its the only thing its what's right in front of me. And you know why it's in front of me is because everyone as a whole will never get the "Equality" we want no matter, race, religion sexuality or ethnicity...
Sexuality is not a choice

Whoa, Okay - I had thought you were on a totally different trajectory with this debate. Regardless I will relish if I am able to sway your opinions, which appear deep rooted and enforced, not your actual opinion on the matter. "I will restate again NO ONE WOULD CHOOSE TO BE GAY" False. I think the more accurate statement here is, "I WOULD NOT CHOOSE TO BE GAY" - that is your choice. You state that there are people who would beat them down about being gay, While yes this occurs - Tragically I may add - This doesn't deter people if that is what their preference is, especially if that person is supporting a stronger/dominant personality type. Just because in your environment, that is what you see - That does not mean it is fact. I would like to add that in for something for you to remember for future debates, as as soon as you sit back like that - your insights will improve, which will in turn improve the quality of your debates. Back to the Debate : I have a personal example - My eldest brother is very 'straight' - he is actually married and has a child. However when he was really young, he got himself a bright pink Umbrella. My parents knew he would be teased outrageously even for a young child, but he was adamant and it was his decision in the end. He had that umbrella for about 5 years, and didn't care a flit what anyone else thought of his preferences - That was his Choice. You seem to choose that simply because some people are that silly that they would allow the fact that one persons' decision is against what they believe - that somehow equates to "I must BULLY/HARRASS this person." While that does occur, and I shake my head at the fact that it does; While it does occur - that does not remove the right that each person has the choice to either follow what they desire and get the benefits, and unfortunate problems, that come with that decision. Bullying will never stop a person's desire - as it is something that comes from inside them. They could choose not to act on those desires - however that is the persons choice. Ergo : Sexuality is a Choice.
Sexuality is not a choice

First I said in the beginning of my statement your not born with your sexuality yes u may grow to to prefer something but you don't choose to like apples or not its what happens and what God chose to have like and dislike... I will restate again NO ONE WOULD CHOOSE TO BE GAY... If there are people in this world who will just beat them down about it . Another thing, why would a person choose to kill themselves over something like that... It's the stress people put on them and the bullying that the WHOLE world not just one person downs on the whole Lgbtq community
Sexuality is not a choice

Hello, I would like to join this Debate with you. Please note before we proceed, I would like to bring to your attention that I do not have any prejudices against sexuality, and I believe each human has their own preferences and settings. However I believe that Sexuality is a choice, and that is what I would like to debate with you. I would also like to state that even if you do not have a counter-argument, I would prefer to see a round of "I have no counter argument" as opposed to a forfeited round. Debate : I Believe that Sexuality is a Choice. You provided an example regarding apples and bananas - I would like to use this in my Example. Very accurately, you pointed out that one person who is actually gay, may have picked apple while another straight person also picked apple. This very argument is proof that regardless of tastes or backgrounds, people prefer different things, and will do them. Sexuality I have a feeling you believe is something that a person has when they are born (Please correct if this assumption is wrong, I can modify to cover this) - I cry false to this. I believe that this develops due to a persons own tastes, and is affected by their own likes. (Unproven, no one has monitored a persons interests as they grow) - This goes around things such as if the person has preferences to Tall people, muscles, brains, hair color, beliefs, etc. Now, those decisions are all subconscious, i.e. it is happening in the background without the person knowing this directly. However to act upon those decisions, THAT is a choice. I am not stating this as in they have chosen to like a certain person, but to physically react to their urges - that is the choice. I am not saying the above statement ignorantly, as I have myself had to make this choice (I am straight, so there was not additional pressure of peer judgement). However until the point that I was confident enough in myself, I never acted on those urges - It doesn't mean that my sexuality was non-existent, just I Chose not to action. Thank you for this Debate, and I hope we both grow and learn from our discussion. Thank you.
Sexuality is not a choice

If you think sexuality is a choice your absolutely wrong, I'm 100% sure someone wouldn't choose a harder lifestyle just to be beaten down about it. Yes we're not born gay, but the sexual attraction between two girls or a guy and a girl is the exact same. For instance, say you survey 50 people and ask who likes bannas and who likes apples some will say apples some will say bannas and some will say both. Now survey them again and ask about their sexual preference some will say there straight some will say they are bisexual and some will say they are gay. That one gay person may have said they like apples and so might you. In reality we are all the same no matter what we like who we like, this particular thing is not a choice. You may not like nuts but you don't choose to not like them that's just the way you are and you can't change that. For those people who say being gay is a choice why don't you stop thinking about yourself once in awhile and think about what it would be like to be in their shoes, if u were gay you'd do everything to change it because of the people out there who push down on the the weaker ones because their more vulnerable, I'm sure if a gay person would do anything to change their sexuality. They definitely didn't choose it. Let that ponder your mine for a few minutes. Now another scenario if you've ever been bullied you know that it doesn't feel good that bully will do anything to make you feel bad and that is exactly what the world is doing to the Lbgtq community they are bullying them, do every possible thing to stop them from living how they want loving who they want because they have accepted the fact that they like the same sex and all in all stopping them from marrying the ones they love. What Is the point why can't you let them live how they want. Why do you have to try so hard to punish them and hurt innocent people. Why can't they live a happy life like you do. Is there a reason for this.
Global currency

. .. my opponent's account has been deleted? SUMMARY In my post R1 I gave several benefits of a global currency (decreasing costs and economy crises, and promoting investment). My opponent did respond to some of these benefits, but she failed to give sufficient analysis to rebut them. On her side, Con's 2 main arguments were: (a) a practical system for implementing a global currency, and (b) the harms of a global collapse of global currency. In response to (a), I have given the basics of a tentative system, and for (b), I have argued that the harms of a global collapse of currency would occur even now, and are nevertheless outweighed by the benefits of global currency.
Global currency

That was an interesting response, Grayron. I. Your first paragraph argues that internal disagreement on currency and economic theories will immobilize the centralized bank. I respond that the centralized bank members can periodically elect a cabinet whose members share similar philosophies to each other. Each cabinet would have to mandatorily step down after a given period, and the new cabinet would step in. Cabinets, who share similar ideologies, would work smoothly together, preventing any paralysis of the bank. II. Your second paragraph's main point is that a global currency would mean that each banking failure is enacted on a global level, and that the status quo ensures that each nation's banking failure is primarily its own, making other nations more likely to survive. I have two responses. (a) Nations in the status quo are ALREADY interconnected, and an important country's failure impacts all others significantly. The USA's economic crisis should be sufficient as an example here! I admit that the global currency would enact each failure on a global scale, but such failures would not prove significantly worse than the status quo's interconnectivity. (b) Whatever additional harm the global scale failure does cause, it is outweighed by the benefits of global currency that I gave: billions of dollars, tremendous preservation of jobs and industries, and increased growth in science and infrastructure. III. In your last paragraph you said: "Your points are good but they look at the market side assuming no political tension. " Could you elaborate? "In argument against contention #2 it will prevent problems in countries with small economies but not with big economies because the big economic powers are the ones that back it up. This will cause further dependency for small powers on the superpowers." I'm sorry, but neither do I understand this nor do I see how it relates to my Contention #2. Could you elaborate? I hope that the audience sees how the benefits of billions of dollars, countless jobs and a flourishing science outweigh the disadvantages of a global scale failure!
Global currency

Thanks for taking on the challenge. Point 1 of my previous discussion are actually much more significant than you may realize. Without a strong and stable world order it is impossible to make a bank, that is required to print this money, to have proper check and balances. The UN will be mostly immobilized because most of the big countries have vast different economical ideas on how currency or for that matter the world economy should work. It won't likely do anything to the banking system. The currency can't be started by the UN either because the United States and United Kingdom will likely not accept it. This has to be started by another international entity. Lead bankers of big bank become politicans naturally because of their power. Many have social plans but mostly economical ideas such as proving capitalism is good or bad. Right now every country has different ideas on how to solve this economical crisis. Any future economical crisis if the global currency act happens will cause the centralize bank to be in charge of solving the problem. Ben Bernanke believes that the spending that the United States is good because inflating the currency will prevent massive deflation. However other experts believe that we need to enter deflation in order to get out of the crisis. They say that Bernanke plan will lead to hyperinflation. If the global currency idea happens than this will be a decision of the centerize bank leader. With many currency other nations are more likely to survive if one messes up their currency. If this centralize bank ruins the currency it will destroy the world's economy. Your points are good but they look at the market side assuming no political tension. In argument against contention #2 it will prevent problems in countries with small economies but not with big economies because the big economic powers are the ones that back it up. This will cause further dependency for small powers on the superpowers.
Global currency

Welcome, Grayron! You seem critical of a centralized bank. I, for one, welcome our new banking overlords. I agree with you that a global currency will likely lead to some sort of centralized bank. Perhaps something similar to the UN or the International Monetary Fund shall regulate the world's banks. However, I disagree that this centralized bank will have any significant negative effects. I will reserve my counter-arguments until you elaborate on Point 2 and tell us how the centralized banks will misuse their power. Let me present 3 arguments in favor of a global currency: ---Contention#1: Stop wasteful currency trading ---- The world trades about 1.2 trillion worth of currencies daily. Ceasing trade between the present 190 or so currencies would save hundreds of billions in foreign exchange costs. [1] ---Contention#2: End national currency crises----- A currency crisis occurs when some national currency goes haywire and becomes unreliable, prompting mass hysteria, sale of the national currency and purchase of foreign currency, devaluation of the national currency... and ultimately, massive job loss and industry shutdown. Recent examples include the Argentinian crisis (1999-2002) and the 1997 Asian financial crisis.[2] A global currency would stop such crises, thus preserving jobs and industries. Also, the country will be absolved of the need to constantly maintain foreign currency reserves. [1] ----Contention#3: Stabilize international business---- Investors are more likely to invest in a country with a stable currency, in order to have stable and safe investments. Consequently, a global currency would spur investment and lead to development all over the world, in the sciences, in infrastructure and in services. [1] SOURCES: [1] http://moneycentral.msn.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Global currency

Hi my name is Grayron. I am new to this site. I hope it works out well for me. Many countries like China, Russia, and south Africa are suggesting on a global paper currency. I think this is wrong. Point 1: This will give a centralize bank the most amount of power in the world. The bankers are normally unelected in centralized banks. Point 2: This will be used as a force to punish those that differ from the norm. I made two simple points. I would like to see the counter argument.
modern school education makes us literate not eduated

I think there is a simple misunderstanding of my argument. You see, the topic implies that pro believes that school right now is only focused on literacy, however, I am against this idea. I believe that school should focus on literacy, as well as other necessary tools needed for a successful life (like the arts, woods class, computer class, P.E., etc.). The problem now stands that my opponent has yet to prove that all classes in school only focus on literacy (reading and writing). I agree that we need other forms of learning besides literacy classes, however, in the current form of the word 'school', other forms of learning are included in the status quo (as shown from round 1). Summary: Literacy is not the only focus of school as of right now. Thank you and good luck in your final round!
modern school education makes us literate not eduated

I feel literacy is only a small tool in helping one getting educated. Literacy is just a tool to read, write, count and calculate, but it doesn't directly address the need of the human being. The basic need of human beings is to understand oneself and his/her relation to every other entity in existence which differentiates him or her from an animal.This education.People are able to get as best as degrees but these degree don't prove that they are educated. So I suggest we should now start working for education in the true sense of the word, and not just limit ourselves to literacy. Again, this doesn't imply that one should abandon programs of literacy but rather complement it with human consciousness to make the earth a better place to live in.
modern school education makes us literate not eduated

Thanks for the challenge. I will be arguing that modern schooling makes us educated. To get things started, here are seven examples of subject areas that school provides that has nothing to do with being literate and everything to do with education: 1) Sciences 2) Social Sciences 3) Physical Education (learning how to play basketball is educational) 4) Math 5) Home Economics 6) Woods Class 7) Computer Class Finally, my definition of "literate" is as follows: "able to read and write. " -. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Morality is subjective

Thank you for accepting. Let the debate commence! I reject your definition. Some morals can change due to certain conditions, but certain morals must remain for a society to remain intact, which leads me to my first argument. Gun rights. A pressing issue in today's society. An argument that people against gun rights is that "guns kill innocent people". An argument commonly used by people for gun rights is that "Criminals will gain access to guns and kill law abiding citizens without them if they are illegal". Where I am going with this is that both sides of this argument agree that the deaths of innocents is something that should be avoided if possible. This is a moral, and regardless of what the circumstances are, it is a moral that everyone should have. I have used this example to show that informed opinions are partially based on a moral code. The other part of having informed opinions is looking at factual evidence. I think both pro and I can agree that looking at factual evidence is an important part of having opinions, but what we disagree on is that whether or not those opinions should be based on an unchanging moral code. A firm moral code is not only an important part of having opinions, it is an important part of making decisions as well. When making a decision, you consider your values. Having a value system is there to tell you what you should and shouldn't do. If you decide to kill someone because you felt like it, you would think that it is ok to do that. Thus, having subjective morality is not only a threat to people having informed opinions, it is a threat to people's decision making as well, because peoples' opinions influence their decisions. SOURCES: https://research.ku.edu... Back to pro. Good luck.
We should annex or exercise greater control over the old pacific trust territories

During WW2, the United States took the pacific trust territories from Japan. 3 years later, the trust territories were formally handed over to the US. The United States continued to administer them for over 40 years, before finally releasing them to be on there own. After signing a compact of free association, they were independent. Now that I have given a bit of history, I will list my arguments. Military Defense-------------------- Under the compact of free association, the United States were given full military control over these nations. The US is fully responsible and have full control over any military related action that needs to take place. I feel that the US got the bad end of the stick with the compact of free association. I feel that if the US is already taking all this responsibility, then the US should have a little more influence on how they run themselves. Economic Ties-----------------The Micronesian nations are strongly linked to the US. A huge chunk of there income comes from the united states military. They are already using the US dollar and they receive tons of economic aid from the US. They have a inseparable link to the US economy and should be brought in further to the fold. By joining the US, they can be relieved of some of the economic pressure facing these country's, and the US can protect it's investments better by having some control over the islands. Very little influence on the economic stage---------------------------------------------------These Nations have almost no influence on the world stage. All three country's have less then 200,000 people combined. They don't have there own military, and there economy's are based off of selling fish to countries that already are rich in fish. There influence would increase greatly if they were organized territories of a major superpower. They would still be able to govern themselves. --------------------------------------------------------Currently the US territory of Puerto Rico is able to govern itself, like all other US territories. The Micronesian nations would still be able to govern and represent themselves, but they would also gain the perks of being a part of a superpower. They might even be able to get a non voting member in congress.
This house believes that gay marriage should be legalized

Thanks every one for following specially Ike who had to listen me for a while and not always realize when I was kidding him. This is a joke debate, you know that because you read my profile before asking me to debate with you and you know that I'm in favor of gay rights, civil union and gay marriage, so you can't be serious suggesting this debate. Some people will think that there is an intellectual side against gay marriage and another in favor, this is just not true, there is a intellectual side in favor of human rights and a moronic religious side against. Debating human rights (gay marriage) is like debating where children come from, WE SHOULD CONVEREGE!. Marriage may be a good or bad product, but equality means equality for all. By the way just in case some one doesn"t know many countries have gay marriage, and nothing bad come from it. Children rise by homosexual parents develop as good as the one rise by heterosexual parents. Please do never give up on protecting human rights.