BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If homosexuals really are born that way, we should work out a way to kill them at birth.

Baus forfeited the previous round so I will put my first argument forward. However I am not expecting an answer as Baus' account has been closed.Killing is wrong. I think that's a basic enough reason why we shouldn't kill babies.Secondly, killing all homosexuals would be genocide: "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group." (1) Genocide, throughout history has been heavily punished. by legal standards, klling babies is not a good idea.Furthermore, you cannot, today, know who is homosexual and who isn't. Indeed, we have not yet found which gene makes us gay or not. If Pro has some super advanced researches at hand, I would not mind seeing them. Therefore we would have to kill babies we think are gay. That would be totally absurd.However, we have found that the more boys a women has, the more chances there are one of her younger sons will be gay. Does that mean that women would have to live in fear for her child until her child is born?People would not accept that. 55% of Americans favour gay marriage. Nearly eight in ten yound adults favour gay marriage. Just imagine how people would react to it. Young adults would be the first to react on the streets. (2)Lastly, in this debate at least, homosexuality is not wrong. I could even tell you how the Bible doesn't say that homosexuality is wrong. But that is the subject of another debate.To the voters, I would havemore developped my arguments, but seeing as I won't have any response, I won't bother extending mine.1. Definition of genocide: http://dictionary.reference.com...2. Acceptance of gay marriage: http://www.gallup.com...
I have a suspicion that this debate will be vote bombed

Well, I'm certain this debate edified the entire debate.org community. The battle of wits exhibited here were extraordinary and awe inspiring. My opponent has made an air tight case against me, to which I must concede. Thanks to Josh, I couldn't even hope to legitimately win a debate. And now, thanks to him, I can't hope to win this one either. Josh is like the Dark Knight's Joker: an agent of chaos. He destroys the best laid plans simply because some people like to watch the world burn. Well, if a Dark Knight is what Josh wants, then a Dark Knight I'll be... because Gotham needs a Dark Knight. Thank you for your time L-M. I hope you're right, because I could use a win :)
I have a suspicion that this debate will be vote bombed

My opponent forgets two things: 1) Josh generally doesn't read debates. He is merely interested in bombing them. Although possible, it's unlikely that he shall be reading this debate. :D 2) Josh is a nut job who is unable to admit anything which may be inconvenient to whatever ridiculous mindset he has. This can be seen on the comment section in the link I provided (most notably when I point out that his "conditions" for giving up on vote bombing keep changing only for him to flimsily deny this). He fancies the idea that the cleaners are evil, thus considers your comment as a convenience to his mindset. Thanks for the debate. :D
I have a suspicion that this debate will be vote bombed

Not necessarily what I wanted the debate to be about, but it's not like I care given that I merely came to debate in the first place. Ladies and gentleman, this round will be swift as I have seemingly conclusive evidence that shall cause my opponent to lose ALL suspicion of the idea that he shall be vote bombed. If you would be so kind, I would like for you all to direct your attention to the debatefans.com comment section and note the following words from the obsessive nut case who has been responsible for bombing the debates of both my opponent and I: http://debatefans.com... "I just read this a minute ago. PoeJoe, please tell KRF that he is now removed from the cleaner list. Thank you. At 1/27/2009 4:28:27 PM, askbob wrote: KRFournier, you were a cleaner right? For a time, yes. I left when rumblings surfaced of getting even with Josh. I didn't want to get sucked in. Ultimately, I continued to write RFDs, just not under The Cleaners moniker. I did get vote bombed by Josh during that time, but not at this scale." Ergo, my opponent has no reason to suspect that he shall be vote bombed. On the other hand, I have claimed myself to be a Cleaner to the bitter end, thus my suspicion remains. RE:"The irony here is that whoever gets the fewest votes wins in principle." LOL! Looks like I am guaranteed to win this debate then. :D
I have a suspicion that this debate will be vote bombed

I have a greater suspicion than my opponent that I will be vote bombed. I was vote bombed on a recent debate in which my opponent forfeited every round. I was bombed within 24 hours with a score of 35-0 (that's five accounts vote bombing me). A few days later I posted my debate on the forums and the debate.org community rallied to my cause and voted me up, making it 35-69. As of today, I am again losing the debate 105-69. Note also that debates with forfeits do not appear amongst other finished debates. I am clearly a target, and I am certain I will lose this debate. http://www.debate.org... The irony here is that whoever gets the fewest votes wins in principle.
are communication skill , computer familiarity and personal initiatives the gratest needs of young

I'll rebut, as is my burden as Con. By the way, just for clarification, it's your burden to prove they are the greatest need, and mine is to show they are not the greatest need of young people.1) Communication SkillThere have been many geniuses that were completely inept at social interaction. As a matter of fact, most metaphyisists, chemists, even my own dad were extreme introverts (1). One of them is the richest man alive, in fact. By the way, can you give me a definition for communication skill? I assume you mean social interaction.2) Computer FamiliartyAllow me to take you back.100 years ago, the most demanded engine was the steam engine. 25 years later, it was the gas engine. 50 years later, it was nuclear energy. Now, it is sustainable energy. This ought to put technological advances into perspective. I don't know if computer familiarity will even be nessesary for the young at the rate we're going, with computers eventually being able to program themselves now without human interaction (2).3) Personal InitiativesThere are those who teach themselves. There are those who motivate themselves. There are those who work by themselves.These people are in the slim minority (I happen to be in that minority, but that's irrelevant). Most people crave to work in a team, to follow others footsteps. To help others to them is their purpose. They let others give them initiatives. That's how they function. Just 3 counterexamples.1) The ability to learnWithout the ability to learn, we'd effectively be children, unable to progress forward. Instruction, either by self or through a mentor, is potentialy the most important of all virtues. We never stop learning. 2) The ability to think rationalyIf we don't think, we are instintual creatures. If we don't think, we through out government, teaching, all progress we've made so far. Logic and reason brought us out of a dismal, dark age, and without the ability to think rationaly, we'd plunge back into it without skipping a beat. 3) The ability to believeWithout belief in a purpose, we'd stop. Without belief in a reason, we'd give up. Without belief in ourselves, we'd surrender. It's belief that keeps us going, that keeps us alive. The beautiful thing is we don't know if what we believe is true, but we believe it anyway. And that's what gives us purpose. That's what gives us thought, love. A reason to live.I await Pro's response.Sources:(1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...(2) http://www.cio.com.au...
Tulsi Gabbard for Bernie"s VP

Maybe top 3 pick but if Elizabeth warren backs him and becomes his VP I promise you the progressive surge will put Bernie up nationally at least 10 points. Not to mention your pick isn't very well known and I've never seen her grill anybody. Elizabeth Warren has been grilling for quite a while and would utterly crush any opposition VP candidate on the republican ticket. I suppose if Warren wants to give into wall street and back hill dog then I have no problem with your VP pick. unfortunately, don't expect to win any veteran votes; everybody or at least an overwhelming majority of the people I served with are staunch republicans. They're probably pulling for trump.
Tulsi Gabbard for Bernie"s VP

I ask the voters to forgive the forfeiture as I battled the flu symptoms for a few days. I also ask for forgiveness for not posting arguments sooner. Thank you for your arguments. Now then, I do not question that Elizabeth Warren would be a good VP. She's 66, has experience, is United Methodist (to appeal to Christian voters) is yes female, and is progressive. However, Tulsi Gabbard still seems like the better option right now. She is 34, (which leaves an opening for a run in the future for the white house unlike warren, given her age) Secondly, she is from Hawaii which not only lends the geographic balance to the ticket, but the diversity factor, and yes the gender card. Thirdly, she is Hindu and Bernie is a Jew. Bernie is leading a revolution therefore he should continue that by choosing Tulsi and continue the historical firsts. Fourth, Tulsi risked everything to endorse Bernie by resigning from the DNC, therefore, Bernie should choose someone who has literally given her all to him winning. Thank you for the debate so far :)
Basketball is mostly a luck sport

10 minute rounds :/ My opponent is Con on the resolution, but based on his opening round it seems like he's actually for it. So I'll assume he is Pro for the resolution "Basketball is mostly a luck sport". I will negate. I define luck sport to be a game where luck plays a bigger factor than skill. As example would be Rock-Paper-Scissors. 1. Basketball players' size, weight, and age If basketball was mostly luck, then we would expect people from all body sizes to do equally well. But this isn't the case. On average, NBA players have roughly been 6 feet 7 inches, weighed 225 pounds, and been 27 years old. This is because these numbers give you the strength to push defenders out of the way and the height to get over them. If a 5-foot player tried to play basketball, he would struggle because a taller defender could easily block his shot, regardless of how "lucky" the 5-foot player is. I could pull up numbers showing that empirically, NBA players under 6 feet had a lower field goal % than those over 7 feet, but I'll assume thats obvious. 2. Law of physics When you shoot the ball, whether it goes in is determined solely by the force you put on the ball and the direction in which you shoot it. There is no "luck" to whether the ball goes in or not, its 100% dependent on the touch you put on the ball. Sometimes the ball doesn't go in, but thats because you either pushed the ball too hard to too soft, makng it miss the basket. Of course, we don't have as much control over the force we put on the ball as we like, which can account for even good players having bad games shooting the ball, but at the end of the day, the ball going in the basket is a science and has no luck component. 3. Inside vs outsite shotsOn average, NBA players who shoot the ball more closely to the basket have a higher field goal % than those that shoot from further away. This proves you can increase the ball's probability of going in the basket, contradicting that it is mostly luck. Out of time.
Praying curses on enemies is permitted in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures

it is impossible to pray for a curse on someone else. We live in a world where whatever I sow I will reap. If I sow evil on people I will reap evil on myself, If I sow good on people I will reap good. In other words whatever I do to you it will be done unto me. It is impossible to pray a curse on someone when you are cursing yourself as well. Look at Pharaoh from the Bible he cursed all the Jews that all the first-born male children would be killed including Moses's children and in reality he cursed himself and his own child.
Praying curses on enemies is permitted in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures

See "Debate settings" to view judges. Non-Christians may also debate, but must use Scripture and stay on topic. I know this might be a frightening concept, but i believe that praying curses on enemies is permitted as Christians only in extreme situations and as a last resort. God is loving and merciful to those who repent and seek him, but he also passes judgement and fights against those who hate him.
Willie Mays Was a Better Baseball Player Than Mickey Mantle.

The resolution is who was a better baseball player. Durability doesn't have much to do with this. We're talking about baseball skill, durability or lack thereof is another skill or lifestyle choice. You say: "Mays having played more than Mantle would be an advantage for Mays, because the more you play, the more chances you get to contribute; the more you contribute, the more valuable you are; the more valuable you are, the better you've been. In essence, Mays having played longer is reflective of his superior durability." But the resolution isn't who was more valuable, the question is who was a better baseball player. There is no argument that Mays was a more durable player, but that is also not the resolution. The reason I brought up the fact of Mays playing longer than Mantle was to put their stats into context. As far as fielding goes, I won't attempt to make the argument that Mantle was a better fielder, though I think it is closer than most people believe. May's career fielding percentage was .981 while Mantle's was .982: I agree that it takes a team to win a world series but I disagree that the argument is irrelevent. Mantle being on the team was a large reason why his team won seven world series titles. Most telling are the stats of Mays and Mantle in the playoffs. Mays played in five post seasons with his team winning only two playoff series in his entire career. Here are his batting averages: .182 .286 .250 .267 .333 .286 Notice that the only time he batted over three hundred was in 1973 when he only played one game of the playoffs. Essentially he went 1 for 3 in one game. His career OBP in the playoffs is .323 and his slugging percentage was .337 Mickey Mantle performed much better in the post season. His carreer OBP was .374 and his slugging percentage was an impressive .535. Including an amazing year in 1960 when he hit .400 with three home runs, 11 r.b.i. and a slugging percentage of .800 Mantle clearly performed much better in the playoffs against the toughest competition. Now while Mays was a better defender Mantle was a better offensive player. His career OBP is .421 and his career slugging percentage is .557 Compare this to Mays OPB .384 however, they do have identical .557 slugging percentage. Though when you compensate for the ballparks Mantle's OPS (on base plus slugging percentages) far outpaces Mays. The better offensive numbers offsets the fact that Mays was a slightly better defender. As you mentioned baserunning was nearly a wash and Mantle was a better postseason player when he had to face the toughest competition. That gives the slight edge to Mantle being a better player.
Willie Mays Was a Better Baseball Player Than Mickey Mantle.

Mickey Mantle was indeed a better baseball player than Willie Mays. Mr. Mays was a media darling during his time and his affable personality lead to his favorable media persona. Now Mr. Mays was a great player to be sure, but Mickey Mantle was a better player. 1. Home runs: Mr. Mays has more career home runs 660 for Mays and 536 for Mantle, however Willie Mays played for 22 seasons in the major leagues, while Mantle played only 18 seasons. Willie Mays had a season high for home runs of 52, Mickey Mantle hit 54 home runs in 1961. 2. Health: Mickey Mantle never took care of himself. He drank far too much and this affected his natural talent. His legs were often so bad that they had to be bandaged before every game. Yet, through all this he was still able to peform at a very high level. Mickey Mantle was a very good defensive center fielder, while still being able to put up MVP like offensive numbers. Also, Mickey Mantle won the MVP award three times while Willie Mays only won it twice. Mantle also finished much higher in the MVP voting than Willie Mays did on a year to year basis. http://www.baseball-reference.com... Mickey Mantle walked almost 300 more times in his career than Willlie Mays. Also Mantle led the league in walks several times in his career while Mays only led the league once. Mickey Mantle performed much better in the playoffs than Willie Mays. Mays had only one career post season home run, Mickey Mantle had six. Mantle's career playoff batting average was .257, Mays's was only .247 This leads me to my final point: Mickey Mantle won seven world series titles while Willie Mays won only one. All of this leads us to the conclusion that Mantle was indeed a better ball player than Willie Mays, although both were great players.
Willie Mays Was a Better Baseball Player Than Mickey Mantle.

Ok, so, as stated, this debate is simply about who the better baseball player was between Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle. I'll be arguing that Mays was the better player; my opponent will be arguing in favor of Mantle. The criteria that will be used for this debate are hitting, fielding, baserunning, and durability, which will be measured with statistics. This round is essentially just an introduction -- if there's anything that needs to be clarified, then my opponent can ask, and I'll do so. Good luck to whoever accepts. Mickey Mantle: http://en.wikipedia.org... Willie Mays: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Death Penalty

The deth peniltiy servs true justice i dont want a murder to live i want him to suffer who wouldnt if a person kills some one they must die to i belive in. eye for a eye and tooth for tooth do you want a mass murder to live if they are convitced if we stop the exicution people will commit murderr on a rise because they wont fear death of there own lifes to end we should also use harsher methods of exiction like hanging or firing squad and posing gas if you think criminals that kill shouldnt live than you have the right idea and if you disagree you support murder
Death Penalty

Let's not forget that people have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and as long as you're human, you are entitled to these rights. Prisoners or criminals have these rights protected under the law because they are human beings. The only reason why we would imprison people is because they have violated someone else's rights, so that detention is necessary to prevent further obstruction of human rights. It would of course be a further obstruction to human rights if human executions were legally permissible. Since a criminal held in custody is sufficient to prevent further rights violations in the community, the death penalty would be an excessive act of punishment since prevention has already been in place. Proportionality is predicated of justice and imprisonment for a period time would be proportional to the crime, and time served would be scaled in proportion to the severity of the crime in a just society. The death penalty would disproportion the scale of justice, which is way it ought to be illegal and immoral.
Most people who want socialism don't realize the downside.

Due to the nature of this topic, I do not have to prove why anything is moral, You have to prove to me why it is immoral. However before we begin I would like to define Socialism and redistribution of wealth. Socialism: The state owns the common means of production and redistributes wealth Redistribution of Wealth: Redistribution of income and redistribution of wealth are respectively the transfer of income and of wealth (including physical property) from some individuals to others by means of a social mechanism. Now that the definitions are out of the way, I will now address several of your points. " We have done bad job of presenting the downside of socialism and the actual effects it will have on the day to day life. " - Please elaborate. Our education system defines socialism, Capitalism, And communism very clearly in the American school system. Recently in my world history class we learned about the Russian revolution and communism. We are also just beginning to learn about China's version of communism as well. Unless you have any proof of the school system not teaching these subjects, I will dismiss your claim. " Also without realizing many people don't realize they are going against some of thier core beliefs such as individualism. " - This is not exclusive to socialism at all. Any extreme ideology does this in general IE The Soviet Union or Fascist Nazi Germany. - Many Americans don't 100 % believe in individualism. Many people enjoy other peoples company and improve themselves by others whether it be getting advice or counseling. - You're acting as if socialism calls for the abolition of individual rights which is simply not true. Statistically according to US news, More socialist countries such as Canada and Switzerland are higher rated when it comes to individual rights more than the US. This includes being more respectful on property rights, Better distributed political power, Caring more on the environment, More human rights, And more religious freedom. So no socialist countries don't restrict individual freedom or individualism at all. " Another issue that is not brought up enough when it comes to socialism, Is that with socialism you have to create big government, And allow government intervention areas that you wouldn't with capitalism. " - Explain to me why government intervention and big government is a bad thing. Sources will be posted on my profile comment section.
Most people who want socialism don't realize the downside.

My postion is simple. I believe that most people in the U. S who support socialism don't understand the downside of the economic system. As Americans many people don't fully understand what socialism is. We have done bad job of presenting the downside of socialism and the actual effects it will have on the day to day life. Also without realizing many people don't realize they are going against some of thier core beliefs such as individualism. Which is funny because by my estimation the people who support socialism the most are also the ones that rely on or believe the most in the rights of the indvidual to do things without goverment intervention. Another issue that is not brought up enough when it comes to socailism, Is that with socialism you have to create big goverment, And allow goverment intervention areas that you wouldnt with capitalism. I did not cite sources or statistics in this first post purposely, That way I can explain my point of view or ideas and reasoning for making this post. Future post will have evidence to support my claims. If I have been unclear on my postion please do ask for explanation and I will do my best. May the best argument win!