BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religion should be abolished.

Okay I'll go line by line: On you first argument: "abolishing something opens the floodgates for the abolition of almost anything" 1) That argument is empirically denied. Governments before have taken away so called "rights" before but very few governments have ever abolished all rights. Take for example, even the in the most secularized governments, such as the Scandinavian governments, a massive amount of rights still exist for the people. 2) The Scandinavians also prove that fascism is not inevitable. On your Voltaire quote: Voltaire was basically an atheist. Since he would have been censored by the absolutist French governments if he had come out and said so, he chose to give himself the title of "deist." Although advocating personal freedom he pushed for religion to be thrown out of government and advocated the use of reason in public life. I do not advocate an abolishing free speech in this nation. Religion has empirically been the worst violates of this fundamental right. Look to the philosophes, like Voltaire, for proof of this. On you "religion will go underground" argument: 1) Religion did not have to go underground in Italy. The pope was very much active and a collaborator with the fascist powers until he saw them as the losers in the war, then he changed his mind. 2) Religion going underground does not bread fascism, this is empirically denied. If anything, religion encourages fascism, which turns you argument. When you look at history it has been the religions leaders, not secular ones, who mostly side with the fascists. On your final argument: Religion is a right. There is the old say "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Religion has done nothing but hamper human civilization from the beginning. It has empirically shown that it justifies murder, genocide, terrorism (both Muslim and Judeo-Christian).
Religion should be abolished.

First, you may be happy to know I HATE religion. But i support people right to it. This argument is simple, abolishing something opens the floodgates for the abolition of almost anything, this undermines liberty and makes fascism inevitable. "I hate what your saying, but i'll defend with my life your right to say it" Voltaire This is the basis of free speach, if you undermine this concept you may as well be saying free speech should not exist. This is clearly not a position anyone wants to see themselves in, one step forward, 500 years back. Want to 1. Ban government subsidies to churches? GO FOR IT! 2. Teach evolution as true? GOOD IDEA! 3. Enforce separation of church and state? WHY NOT! 4. Ban Religion? HELL NO! Also, banning religion forces it to go underground and breed fanaticism (rome is the example). When people feel their way of life threatened they become violent and with so many powerful religious people this would undermine the stability of nations, which is bad. In theory, it sounds nice but religion is a right. "Religion is the opiate of the people" Karl Marx.
Religion should be abolished.

I'd like to start a debate on the merits of religion. My position that religion is not only an ignorant idea but also it is a dangerous entity to embrace. Religion encourages hatred of other races, silences dissent, stunts science, and genocide. By rejecting the notion of religion we can solve for a substantial cause for the justifications of these problems. Religion also indoctrinates youth which is dangerous because it does not allow for children to get the facts of this world and leads to ignorant adults. ** Note to Voters** Most people vote on the subject of the debate and not actually the content. So I'm asking for all voters to provide a reason for their vote via a comment on this debate thread.
~One Sentence Debate~ Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time = Best Video game EVER!

Because of this, and since the majority of gamers are males between the ages of 13 and 25, I suggest that there are other games more appropriate for the challenge required. As a final word, I would like to remark on the usefulness of the semicolon; a semicolon can be used to separate two independent clauses; however, the two clauses technically remain parts of the same sentence; the viability of each clause on its own matters not; a semicolon is simply a more elegant way of making a compound sentence; this means that the clauses would ideally be relevant to each other. You're welcome for not using semicolons. =)
~One Sentence Debate~ Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time = Best Video game EVER!

~~~~ Tired of having to read such long debates in order to vote on them?? Try a 'One Sentence Debate'! RULES: 1. Only one sentence or phrase allowed per post. 2. Avoid Run On sentences. ~~~~~~~~ OOT is the best video game of all time because of its memorable theme musics/ sound effects and it's classic graphics.
Quick Debate: The US should not send troops to stop the ISIS offensive

I. United States had a responcibility to maiontain freedomNo we don't, and freedom isn't something you can give people. Free men decide, other men comply. This point is completely unsubstsantiated, and their IS no reasoning on why we have to govern others. II. We are the best We don't need more people moving to the United States. We have 6% unemployment, and have a market that's unattractive to new multi nationals. Getting into more wars will make us less than the best, if we even were. III. Money and LivesMy opponents rebutttal is weak. To shorten what he just said, everything costs money, and people aren't forced to go and die. People put their faith in their CO and government that they will go and fight where they're needed, and do a service for our nation. This tied into my point that we are sending warm bodies at a problem that cannot be fixed. As for money, the taxpayers do not know what or where it is going towards. All we see is a 820 billion broad budget. At least with wars on terror we know what we're getting ourselves into. A unpopular war that will boost the budget even larger. . http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...IV. Terrorist TacticsMy opponent did not understand my contention. ISIS are not terrorists, they're a side in a civil war pooled into Iraq. We are not fighting terror, we are choosing which one of two governments should rule Iraq. It is not our responcibility to fight or choose who gets to run a country that we know nothing about. V/VI. Bush DoctrineWell. .. . thanks for clearing that up.
Quick Debate: The US should not send troops to stop the ISIS offensive

IYou may be right in the fact that it may not be our war. However, what happens when freedom in Iraq is eradicated? Whose job is it to maintain that freedom? No one else will do it. Who is going to do that? We, the US, will have to.IIWe are the global image for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as stated in the US Constitution. People look up to that constitution internationally. People move here for that reason. Why else would they move to the United States?IIIWars do cost money and they most certainly do cost lives. There is no doubt about that. However, people sign up for that. They aren't made to join the military. That is all voluntary. As for money: what else do you know of that doesn't cost money. I agree there is more and better to have that spent on like NASA for instance. They're budget is only 7-16 billion dollars whilst the national defense budget is somewhere around 615 billion dollars. IVTerrorists can be beaten. How do you know they can't? Is there a scientific law that states that they can't? Also, I am pretty darn sure that it would not take 100 years for terrorism to be crushed in Iraq. It is how you eradicate terrorism. Not how long. I agree you can beat terrorism peacefully. Show people the more justified side of things. Let the people know that violence is never a good answer. Show them there is better ways to show people you don't agree with them. V & VIThe Bush Doctrine is a more conservative way of saying we just need to be in the middle east to protect our resources AKA oil. However, it is what every politician in DC agrees with because they are greedy old men who just want something to hang onto. They are old; I honestly don't think they know better, they are like children with billions of dollars in their bank accounts. Lastly, we do need to look strong. We may look strong now but if we stop trying looking strong; we will appear weak.
Quick Debate: The US should not send troops to stop the ISIS offensive

I. It's not our warMany are under the impression that we have a "duty", or "responcibility" to help others across the world. We have international organizations that can be used to stabalize the world, but one thing holds true, manifest destiny is outdated. It is not our duty to spread democracy to the west, or any other form of post imperial doctrine.II. International Image Stained The US, following the global leadership report, dropped in popularity every time we escalated a war in the middle east. The international community thinks we're in the wrong, and I do as well. The International community are our biggest tool, and we need to recognize that interdependence is the key to economic growth.III. Wars cost billions of $ and lives Our 10 year campaign in democracy building has earned us nothing. We are spending about 100 billion a year in maintenance and transportation in the middle east. This is slowly starving American citizens and our costing us more lives than lost by soldiers in Afghanistan, which is already above 40,000. IV. Terrorists can't be beaten If these people were even terrorists. They are the opposition in a civil war, and the US conservatives think they can just call a rebel a terrorist, and be justified in fighting them. Truth is, we are picking sides in a civil war, and we are currently backing the losing side.Estimates have it that it would of taken about 100 years of occupation in Iraq before terrorism would be completely crushed.V. Bush DoctrineWhen has that ever worked for us? No seriously, has their been one time the bush doctrine worked in our advantage? It put us in massive debt and unemployment, killed the bond market, and made investors lose billions in forex.And for what? So another nation can vote in a different dictator?VI. We need to look STRONGNo we don't. Who cares if we look weak? My opponent has already contended that we're strong, so their is no need to prove anything. Are the 10,000's of soldiers who died pointlessly in Iraq worth appearing strong?
Quick Debate: The US should not send troops to stop the ISIS offensive

I take the challenge. Also, I presume that I am for sending troops to Iraq. Bush DoctrineBush Doctrine states that we must protect our resources and protect others from terrorists. The goal of this is to spread democracy throughout the world, ESPECIALLY, the middle east in order to fight terrorism. Source: https://www.princeton.edu...As for the logical side of the debate/conversation is this. IF the US was to lets say get involved ONCE MORE in Iraq; we would be letting the militants know we are STRONG. Allowing ourselves to not get involved would simply makes us look weak. We are not a weak country. We are a strong country.
The "White Race" should not be absorbed into the "Race of the Future".

All humans have white attributes (or had white attributes unless they were born with a terrible birth defect so they didn't have any of these white attributes. The white attributes I'm referring to are inherited in many different shades of white. I'm talking about teeth, human teeth. All humans are born with white, or varying shades of white, teeth because all humans are of one blood. We are all one race. The human race. The same human race of 100 years ago will be the same human race in the future. The same human blood of then is the same human blood of now and will be the same human blood in the future. It always has been and always will be one race, the human race. Apology to my opponent, sorry he didn't get a better debater to argue this. Would my opponent think somebody he would say is "of the white race" is a better opponent because they have more brains in their toenails? Does my opponent think he has extra brains because he has so much brainpower to ponder the importance of blonde hair?
The "White Race" should not be absorbed into the "Race of the Future".

There is no such thing as "the white race". We are all one race, we are all of one blood, we are all human. Every one of us is part of one race, the human race. The human race is the human race of the past and it will be the human race of the future. Skin color, hair color, toenail color, eyecolor, freckles or no freckles, red, blonde, brown, black or bald, curly or straight, does not matter. You see, whatever point you are trying to make in your opening assertion and argument is wrong. The human race is one race. Your argument was easy to refute based on this simple fact.
The "White Race" should not be absorbed into the "Race of the Future".

Spectators of every race, age, and gender, from every country of the globe (except North Korea, Amish communities, and places without internet)...I present to you one of those dreaded race debates! Though this may be disrespectful for me to say (and I apologize for saying this, just being honest) but...I didn't want LifeMeansGodisGood to accept this debate. I was hoping that a "better" debater would accept. That being said, I will debate him on this topic nonetheless, as forfeiting would cost me precious ELO. Therefore, I shall begin. Just for some further clarification, "White race" means the White Race as a whole. This debate is not about some White people marrying people of other races. I'm okay with this, provided that it is not done on too large a scale. Just thought I'd clarify. You may ask, why White people? Why not Blacks, or Asians, or Pacific Islanders? Well, I think that they should also be preserved, but there are a few things that set whites apart. I am NOT saying that White people are superior in some way, just to be clear. Whenever Whites and non-Whites have kids, those kids usually lose their White attributes. For example, here's a White-Asian mix: http://www.bing.com... Here's a White-Black mix: http://www.bing.com... Need I say more? If every White person married a non-White person (or didn't have kids), then the end result would be that classic White attributes would be lost. Now, I am not talking about Whiteness. Every race has a unique skin color, so Whites are not unique in uniqueness here. BUT...White people do have hair that is not black and eyes that are not black. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the two unique attributes of White people. Black people? They've got black hair and black eyes? Chinese people? They've got black hair (dark brown at best) and black eyes. Bottom line: if all the Whites intermarry, you'll lose redheads, blondes, and green and blue eyed people. Everyone would have black hair and black eyes. Unless you're old, in which case you have white or gray hair (or you have no hair at all). Or, if you're albinistic, but that is definitely a rare thing. Now, just so that I don't sound like a complete racist, I would like to point out that each race has its own unique attribute(s). Black people have their puffy lips and big noses, along with their hair which is definitely unique. "Mongoloid" people have those eyes (and probably something else, but I can't think of anything else). But this specific debate is about White people, so that's the race that we're talking about here. Anyway, I thought that I'd be able to think up more than that, but it turns out that's it, so I await my opponent's rebuttals.
The "White Race" should not be absorbed into the "Race of the Future".

Burden of Proof is shared. Definition of Race of the Future: . http://en.wikipedia.org... Definition of White Race: . http://en.wikipedia.org... This debate has been set up in a manner which doesn't allow "noob" debaters to accept. And as Aerogant's account has been closed, I don't have to worry about him accepting this debate. I await a worthy challenger. To the person who accepts, I wish you good luck, because victory won't be as easy to come by as you may originally think.
Reality T.V shows are becoming boring.

Reality T.V show's are multi-million pound enterprise's that bring in a massive revenue. This success is because they appeal to the common British viewer, and although some people abstain from watching, a vast number of people still watch. If reality T.V was as boring as you claim, then it would not make the money it does. While some show's have declined in popularity, such as Big Brother, other show's such as I'm a Celebrity get me out of Here, X factor, Britain's Got Talent and Hell's Kitchen (The F word) still attract large audience's. XFactor especially, which has become one of the most successful T.V show's ever. Here is one example Xfactor: S 1: 2004 : 6.90 million view's on Average. S 2: 2005 : 8.72 million avg S 3: 2006 : 8.07 million avg S 4: 2007 : 8.35 million avg S 5: 2008 : 10.50 million avg S 6: 2009 : 13.31 million avg. http://en.wikipedia.org... This show's a positive correllation. It is actually becoming more popular.
Reality T.V shows are becoming boring.

Modern day society has seen a huge surge in the amount of reality T.V shows in the last decade. Reality shows normally only stay popular for less then a decade. Shows like Big Brother and Xfactor have quickly become disliked. They have also caused a lot of other damage. For example after the start of Xfactor, the Christmas No.1 is normally the single by the Xfactor winner. This has eliminated the whole fun of the Christmas No.1, which is very sad. Since Big Brother has been on television it has gone from a very good show to a pointless waste of time. Big Brother Live fills up the television time which is completely stupid as it could be replaced with better shows. It also fills up channels like E4 with pointless add on shows. I think that reality T.V shows should be replaced as they have become pointless and boring.
Beauty is skin deep

Often our society will judge through someone's external beauty not taking into consideration of his or her internal qualities. Our society today has placed many false values on external beauty. Belief in these false values can be very harmful and even fatal to ones well being. At a young age we are taught to believe that external beauty is of utmost importance and can bring success into life. ? If you dress and look like this do you think anyone will marry you?? ? Wow look at that women how beautiful, I am sure she is going places in life? The influence of these views on people?s minds, especially young people can lead to major problems including eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia. Is it honestly worth it? Yes, someone's external beauty might lead to success, even fame. For example take a model who is successful. It doesn't matter to the designers, and fashion industry that use her if she has the qualities that make her internally attractive. As long as she has the typical six foot, 98 pound, perky, and defined features she's perfectly beautiful to them.
Beauty is skin deep

I. ExtensionIf my opponent did build her argument around her correct uderstanding of the phrase "Beauty is only skin deep." Then I am to assume I misunderstood the point of her opening statements.I interpreted what she wrote as what we appear as on the outside isn't what makes someone beautiful, but it is actually a person's inner character that makes them such. That is, however, in direct contradiction to what "Beauty is only skin deep" means, which is that a person can have an amazing personality whether or not they are beautiful outwardly.Regardless, she has yet to provide an argument to support her case, which means I have no refutations to deliver. On to round 3.
Beauty is skin deep

I'll make myself clear then. I am not confused about what beauty being skin deep means. Beauty should actually be skin deep because most people judge others based on their physical appearance rather than their personalities. That is what really matters. Like the saying: "Don't judge a book by its cover, it's what's inside that's matters," - Michael Green (http://www.libraryofquotes.com...). The quote shows that what is in the inside and nothing should be judged by the physical appearance. By the way, I am a female. Now I assume you'll want to go on with round 2.
Beauty is skin deep

I. OpeningMy opponent seems to be confused at what beauty being skin deep means. While Pro argues that people should who are fat, ugly, etc. should be considered beautiful so they can feel good about themselves, he fails to recognize he is explaining why beauty is skin deep. That being that what makes someone beautiful is based on his/her outward appearance.So, I'd recommend my opponent argue for the side he is on, as to not make this debate easier on me.II. Constructhttp://dictionary.reference.com... defines beauty as: the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations (such as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest.)Note the final part, "as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest." It mentions personality and spiritual qualities. Neither of which are viewed as physical traits that are only skin deep. Not only that, but it seems that anything causing "deep satisfaction to the mind" can be considered beautiful. While this can include physically attractive qualities, there are many other things a person would consider satisfying in a person. This can be anything from humorus personalities to financial success. III. ClosingThe definition speaks for itself. There isn't much to present past that. I will therefore pass the debate to Pro for 2nd round arguments.
we should eat less junk food

I accept.Problems with the resolutionMy adversary states, in the resolution, that "we" should eat less junk food. First of all, who is the "we" in here? It seems like my adversary is stating that all people on the Earth should eat less junk food, including those who have already cut down on junk food or don't eat it at all. This causes the debate to be about whether or not all people on the face of the Earth should cut down on junk food, which is a near-impossible or plain impossible BOP to uphold.Contentions What my opponent states is that people should cut down on junk food because it makes for a healthier body and therefore stops bullying.. However correct this might be, this statement is a weak argument. Firstly, bullies don't just make fun of fat people or even thin people who eat lots of junk food. Second, it seems that exercise does not come to mind for my opponent. Thirdly, it's for the person eating junk food to decide whether or not to cut down on junk food - it's their body.
Summer Is The Best Season

As I stated in my first sentence of round two, Summer is the best season in my opinion. I am stating my opinion, and my opinion is that Summer is the best season. I don't only like Summer, I also like Spring, Fall, and Winter. Summer has lots of fun in store, and I really like Summer. You can like whatever season you want, and I respect that, but I am going to give reasons on why I think Summer is the best season. I like Summer because I get a 3 month break. I get to spend more time with my friends and family, I get to spend more time by myself, and I get more time to have fun. I also like Summer because that is the season when pools open for people to swim and cool down. During Summer, I get to travel, go on a vacation, or go to a hotel. I really like Summer, and you should too, and if you don't, I am fine with that. I just want to state my opinion: Summer is the best season.