BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Some cultures are better than others.

No worries, thanks for clearing that up, I appreciate it. Of course there are elements of subjectivity involved, your example of the hijab in Islamic culture is a prime instance of this. There are many other specific cultural aspects that can be subjectively critiqued this way such as segregation in certain religious practices and the attitudes towards minorities in certain circles. I therefore accept that what is considered freedom differs depending on the cultural viewpoint. I do believe that it is perfectly natural to acknowledge that certain cultures breed actual real world harms that go beyond the cultural differences defence. The many cultures around the globe that persecute LGBT people for example is an undeniable harm [1], a truly undesirable product of certain cultures. Also the presence of FGM present in certain cultures is developed out of religious and/or traditional reasoning within these cultures [2]. Other harms include: slavery, censorship, rape, honour killings, extremism etc. Perhaps the 1st of my 3 points for ranking cultures should have made an explicit point about these harms in the context of freedom. Your second example of the Scramble to Africa is also a reasonable point. Western culture, like all cultures has a dark past and present. Because a culture views themselves as superior it does not grant them power over others, rather the goal should be to better their own culture and work towards eliminating societal harms. It is a normal aspect of life to assess other cultures and we do this everyday, sometimes unconsciously. Of course this is subjective and while my three point plan may seem like an attempt to objectify cultural hegemony, it should instead be considered as natural assessments people regularly apply to other cultures in judgement. I believe this is fair and honest. Thanks for the debate. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.who.int...
Some cultures are better than others.

By restating the definition of culture I was not trying to imply that your definition was wrong. I was just trying to use that to emphasize my point. Sorry if it sounded like I disagreed with you. Thanks for taking the time to debate with me.In the Islamic culture, women are expected to wear a hijab. Someone from the Western culture might see this as being repressive because we believe freedom is the right to do what ever you want. However, in Islamic culture many women feel like wearing a hijab is a form of freedom because it gives them the right to keep their privacy and modesty. My point is that what is considered freedom can be drastically different from culture to culture. From 1881 to 1914 during the Scramble for Africa the people in Western culture believed that taking over African territories and enslaving black people was their duty. To them, African culture was an unsanitary and poor society that needed to be "cultured" and "civilized". They believed that it was their duty to westernize African people because Western culture was superior over African culture[1]. Would it have been fair to then conclude that African culture is worse than Western culture because of the Europeans beliefs? We cannot justly rank cultures based off of personal beliefs. Maybe one would dislike African culture because they believe that their culture is financially and politically unstable. Maybe someone from African culture would dislike Western culture because they believe their culture is selfish and over powered. The point is, everyone has different opinions on what they like or dislike about other cultures. A culture's political views, economic views, or personal values might not be the same as another culture's. Something that one person might view as bad, might be seen different by someone else. In the end it's all about perspective and opinion and we cannot fairly rank cultures based off of this. _______[1] http://ux.brookdalecc.edu...
Some cultures are better than others.

Thank you for challenging me izz0. I'm going to start this round by addressing the points you made in you attempt to refute my views. Firstly, your definition of culture, while accurate seems to be used with the assumption/tone that my given definition in round one was incorrect. I stated that "Culture here is defined as the collective learned beliefs, values, and customs that regulate the behavior of members of a particular society." This is not at odds with your definition or the other accurate definitions of the word culture. In the dictionary culture is defined as "the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group: [e.g.] drug culture, youth culture." [1] There are many other relevant definitions here such as "a particular form or stage of civilization, as that of a certain nation or period" and "the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc." [1] It is a sociological belief that culture is a source of human freedom because as social creatures humans make and remake themselves. Society is the collective of people who interact in a defined territory and culture. Will Kymlicka [2] argues that individual freedom is linked with memberships of social cultures, and that while all cultures have a desirable right to exist these cultures can be at odds with traditional liberal values. Therefore it is na"ve to ignore cultural impact upon freedom. We know of Islamic cultures which repress those outside of their theocratic world view [3]. We know of various drug and subcultures where death is rife. Such was the Chinese cultural revolution entwined in the social, economical and political realms that their society collapsed. Round 3: objectivity & harms [1] http://www.dictionary.com... [2] https://books.google.co.uk... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Some cultures are better than others.

I'd like to first address the ways you said you like to measure a culture's hierarchy. In your first point you said: "How free the people within said culture are". However, freedom is not governed by one's culture. Culture is defined by the dictionary as "the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular social group". There's no part of a culture that might change someone's personal freedom. Therefore, this part of your argument is invalid. The right to act, speak, or think is not effected by one's culture so it is not an effective way to rank a culture. In your second point what you stated was "How socially, economically, and politically advanced a society is where that culture is dominate". I disagree with this being a good way to size up a culture. Politics and economics, by definition, is NOT a direct factor in a culture. Thus, you cannot use this to accurately class a culture. If you wanted to rank a culture you would have to take into consideration "art, customs, social institutions, and achievements" from that culture. However, can you really rank that kind of stuff using facts and statistics and not using opinion? Culture is not something that can be looked at with statistics and facts, therefore you cannot rank cultures and there is no way, except by opinion, that one culture could be considered better or worse than others.
Some cultures are better than others.

It is my standpoint that some cultures are simply better than others. Humanity consists of a broad church of peoples and cultures that have been shaped throughout history by socio-political events. But it is my understanding that cultures have developed to differing degrees, with some being far advanced to others. Culture here is defined as the collective learned beliefs, values, and customs that regulate the behavior of members of a particular society. I argue that a cultures' position in this hypothetical hierarchy can be determined by assessing 3 measures: 1) How free the people within said culture are. (This could be undertaken similarly to how annual freedom of the world indices are published). 2) How socially, economically and politically advanced a society is where that culture is dominant. 3) How harmonious/conflictual a culture is when it engages with cultures where it is trailing in categories 1) and 2). Admittedly I view Western culture (though it contains many diverse sub-cultures) as the dominant and leading standard of culture. I do not believe that it is perfect or utopian, but it is better than competing cultures using my above 3 measures. Cultural hegemony exists throughout the world. It should not be a taboo issue, but one that is highlighted to protect positive cultural values and customs, and work towards fixing the bad. I invite someone with an opposing view to present a case which disputes mine. While I have not used specific examples in this opening round I will in further rounds, should they occur. I used this round purely to state my standpoint on the topic.
Life Does Exist On Other Planets.

There are an estimated 200 billion suns with about 100 Billion planets in the MilkyWay alone. The Milkyway is 1 of 100 billion galaxies in the universe. Your chances of winning the lottery on a single ticket is one in 175 million. The probability of a civilization developing on a potentially habitable alien planet would have to be less than one in 10 billion-trillion. This is referring just to intelligent life over the time of the universe. We are not alone in the cosmos, The chances are extremely high. The chances of winning any lottery is lower than the probability of extraterrestrial life existing. There are more planets in the universe than grains of sand on earth.
Life Does Exist On Other Planets.

Ok tough guy, let me whip out these facts and cockslap you across the face. Based on HONC if you're a molecule theory, carbon should have 4 bonds. Because silicon is in the same family, it should also make four bonds. Carbon is an important element involved in organic chemistry, and many of our biological processes like niggering. But, let me enlighten you: silicon isn't just floating around in the nigger universe. These retarded ufo theories based on relativity are utterly atrocious and have no scientific backing. Just because your dumbass saw a plane fly into two towers does not immediately mean it's an alien. Think again mexican.
prochoice folks should agree: a fetus born during botched abortion should be finished off

I am not sure how to proceed with this debate from this point in.I pointed out all the flaws with Pros arguments, and now my opponent refuses to engage me.I will instead use this time to elaborate on the "botched abortion" claim and hope my opponent engages me.If an abortion does not work, then the person in question has the choice to attempt the abortion again which happens in many cases. The other option is to carry the fetus to term and give birth. In either case the person has a choice. People make choices all the time so this should not be surprising to anyone that sometimes a person may change their mind on the idea on abortion.Let me elaborate with an analogy. Chemotherapy is an extremely dangerous and painful cure for cancer. Most people with Cancer will attempt chemotherapy. However, if it does not work after a treatment (or two) many people will stop due to the negative side effects. It does not mean they choose to dies, it just means they don't want the treatment. In the same way if an abortion does not work a person may decide not to try again.I hand the debate back to my opponent.
prochoice folks should agree: a fetus born during botched abortion should be finished off

I accept this challenge.I am sure my opponent and I can agree on the term abortion as given below.Abortion: a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus.(1) As such a fetus cannot be born, as an abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.Further, all the so called babies born after "botched abortions" are babies that were carried to term after an attempted abortion did not work. Unsurprisingly, like any medical procedure, abortions do not work all the time. So botched abortion is a fallacy, as it does not mean the baby was born during the abortion.I hand the debate back to my opponent.(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Voters should not be dissuaded in their ideal choice because a candidate is unlikely to be elected.

Politics often present many conundrums. Often times one may find themselves in a situation where the candidate they truly support is unlikely to be elected. Possible reasons a voter may presume their choice candidate may be unlikely to be elected: They're running under a party platform other than Democrat or Republican. Voters generally don't know enough about the candidate, or perhaps haven't even heard of them. A large subset of voters are socially encouraged to compromise significant portions of their individual values to rally behind one candidate who best encompasses (and compromises) everybody's values - presumably in order to oppose a candidate who most negatively impacts an important aspect of the entire group's values. The candidate is simply disliked by an obviously large percentage of people. I will attempt to prove that Americans *should* vote for the candidate they truly support despite reasons such as these. Point 1:Common sense would suggest that any candidate running for election is likely to have at least some people who consider them absolutely ideal, and at least some people who consider them absolutely awful. As the number of candidates running for election increases, the number of compromises a voter has to make to decide on their ideal candidate decreases. Point 2:Voting is meant to tally those in support of a candidate - and by extension, all policies and values that candidate embodies - ultimately in order to determine the predominant collective opinion. If a large majority of voters compromise a significant portion of their values when choosing a candidate then the election does not accurately reflect the values of those votingPoint 3:When voters accurately cast their votes it can have a significant political result regardless whether their candidate wins or not. Growing numbers of votes for failed candidates that reflect certain values demonstrate to law makers and future candidates that those values are increasingly of major political importance, and in need of representation. A significant example of this[1] pertains to women's suffrage and child labor laws, as heralded by the Progressive Party around the turn of the centuryConclusion:In order for the election process to consistently produce candidates and suggest policy that closely match the values and goals of a predominant portion of society, voters must accurately reflect their values and goals when casting their vote![1] http://books.google.com...
Voters should not be dissuaded in their ideal choice because a candidate is unlikely to be elected.

Kiaora e te whanau. Firstly i would like to thank those who made this debate possible and I too hope for clean and appropriate debate. It doesn't really matter whether or not the candidate will be elected because no one can be sure who will win however if the candidate should show that he is incapable of being elected and they should only choose not to vote for them, if the incapability was proven to be of his own accord and so if voters choose not to vote for them then it is their own problem and not the voters.
Voters should not be dissuaded in their ideal choice because a candidate is unlikely to be elected.

Debate is 4 rounds. 1st round is for acceptance, defining of terms, etc. 72 hour debate rounds, 1 week voting period. 4,000 max character arguments. This debate is for those with less than 3 completed debates (I'm new to this too!) Resolution: Americans should not be dissuaded from voting for their ideal candidate by fear that said candidate is unlikely to be elected. I look forward to a good debate!
Being in Lego land is an acceptable excuse to "sh*t bricks".

"There is much to be scared of in Lego land. I could even list them right now.• Barry the Ambiguously-smiling Safety inspectorHes just an honest guy trying to make a living. "• The concept of eating a lego brick"Not really that scary depending on how big of a brick we're talking about"• The concept of stepping on a lego brick"EVERYONE CALM DOWN. Thats only an issue when you are BAREFOOT. When you have on shoes then you are perfectly safe. • Turning into a brickmuch less scary then turning into a prick....• The word 'Lego'. I mean, this is a clue? Is Lego made of Zombies' legs? Woah, this is spooky, man.Meh, I can live with that• Colin the conspiracy theorist telling you weird stuffOh him? Dont worry, the guys in dark suits will come along and take him away + erase his memory shortly• Your peers executing peer pressureIm thankful I have friends in the first place ok. "Also, Lego land has the best toilets in the whole entire world."The best toilet you can sit on and sh*t in at the same time is any woman's face, every guy knows that....==============================================================================In conclusion: It is unacceptable to sh*t a brick in legoland because there is literally nothing scary enough to cause you to sh*t yourself that you can find in a legoland that cant have its memory erased by the US government
Being in Lego land is an acceptable excuse to "sh*t bricks".

But imabench (if that is his real name), is wrong. There is much to be scared of in Lego land. I could even list them right now.• Barry the Ambiguously-smiling Safety inspector• The concept of eating a lego brick• The concept of stepping on a lego brick• Turning into a brick• The word 'Lego'. I mean, this is a clue? Is Lego made of Zombies' legs? Woah, this is spooky, man.• Colin the conspiracy theorist telling you weird stuff • Your peers executing peer pressureThen, all of a sudden, your peers do some pressure. This inevitably makes everyone eat a lego brick. Since it's definitely unavoidable, I'd call it an acceptable excuse. "But.. but but..," I hear Dr Bench saying "What h..h....h..happens next?" Well Bench, the brick goes through your body and goes straight to your bum. When there are solids in your bum, you poo (or s***) them out. By then, that shiny cherry red brick you ate is now a brown smelly brick, like what you use to make houses with [2].And yes, everybody stays in Lego land for the time it takes for the brick to get to your bum. It's irresistable. Also, Lego land has the best toilets in the whole entire world.Are bricks really THAT scary?Yes [3]. Also, all amusement parks are so expensive that it makes everyone just want to do said explicit action anyway.Thank you.Sources[2] http://wallcee.com...;[3] https://dov5cor25da49.cloudfront.net...;Also, I'm pretty sure I missed out on a few trademark and copyright symbols, considering I'm talking about a company thing. So, here. ™ ™ ™ ™ ™ ™ ™ ™ ™ © © © © © © © ©
Being in Lego land is an acceptable excuse to "sh*t bricks".

I believe that being in Legoland is not an acceptable excuse to sh*t bricks. It is true that to sh*t a brick means to have seen something really scary, and one can see how or why one would be eat a lego brick because, well come one thats something we've all done at one point.... Eating a lego Is like a rite of passage in America, like realizing that Jerry is actually an a**hat in Tom and Jerry, or that Spongebob episodes just aren't as good as they used to be, or that SNL was never funny to begin with..... However, I contend though that it is not acceptable to sh*t a brick in Legoland because to sh*t a brick means to have seen something scary, and there is nothing scary in Legoland that could cause someone to sh*t a brick. Instead you will have to wait the standard 2 -3 days for the lego to pass through your digestive system and end up in the toilet at a Denny's like God intended.
Being in Lego land is an acceptable excuse to "sh*t bricks".

If you log onto a computer frequently, you may be familiar with the internet. The internet is this fun little ditty where there is fun for all. There are things that aren't in stupid real life, such as the phrase "sh*t bricks". For everyone who is not a trouble-making teen, the phrase means to see something real scary. For example, this [1]. But whether we like it or not, we may have to spend some time without a computer. Now, I am completely against this, and am a fond lover of this popular internet catchphrase, so I wish to incorporate it into real life. But there's one problemo: how will I do it? "Eureka!" I cried, once I knew it! "I shalt do it literally at Legoland! Get it? Bricks! Everything there is bricks! Perhaps even ... (you get the gist)". So that's what I want to debate today. Thank you. Sources [1] http://9gag.com...
Gay marriage shouldn't be legalized at this point in time

Having a 'negative impact' is not the same thing as hurting someone. The assessment of what is or is not a negative impact is entirely subjective. Anything can be thought of as having a negative impact. Playing video games can be considered negative, in comparison with doing your home work or working a part time job. Saying something stupid can be considered to have a negative impact on the people hearing it. These things aren't crimes and should not be prohibited. Your definition of harm is so incredibly broad that you open the door to the prohibition of virtually anything. We don't need the government telling us what we can and cannot do, and who we can and cannot marry. If some dude wants to marry another dude, that's not the governments business, that's not their business. There is no benefit from criminalizing gay marriage and it's discriminatory against the homos. Conscription, which my opponent advocates, has been abolished in most right thinking nations because it is a form of slavery. War, incidentally, is not a conflict between PEOPLE but between governments. But we digress. Let the homos have equal rights and marry each other. More chicks for the rest of us!
Gay marriage shouldn't be legalized at this point in time

I agree people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they are not hurting others. However, as I explained they are having a negative effect. Also, it is our business because we do not live separately our actions are having an impact on other members of the world. In life there are certain choices and once made the after effect in decision making is limited. Say you want a college degree from that point you are limited in getting it. You need to go through certain procedures in order to obtain it and if you don't follow those you can't get it. Same goes if you want to life you can't kill yourself so you are not free to do everything once you made a choice. Living in a society is also a choice and once chosen you can't do certain things because of that choice. You live as a whole now and must have a certain duty to that society. For example, if war is declared upon your country it is by law that you will be forced to fight for your nation. As you now see it is our business to govern this because it is our duty as a community. In this case, as I have explained the negative effects of gay marriage if you disagree counter it in the final round. In your reference to interracial marriage it is the perfect example to empower my argument about the after effect once the definition of things changes. Once it was forbidden and now it isn't. It has become a standard so that is the indicator that it will also happen with gay marriage. That is why it's so powerful because it has been given symbolic meaning. I won't get married either for the same reason you stated, but that's not how most people see this arrangement. As I rest my case in this final paragraph I enclose it with saying I have laid down my arguments, re-enforced them and countered my opponent's arguments. Vote for JOhn D. 5iler.