BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Zaradi Toruney: Best Military Leaders Debate

*9spaceking walks across a snowy mountain top as piano music begins to playThe debate on DDO ends tonightNot an argument to be seenImabench started this debatebut he did not really have timeI'm winning, wipin' him off the mattHad to made this parody cuz' this song was in my head.Well here I go, for now, it may not be good.Put some words here, put some words there!I don't know how to make my chorus rhyme,try to hide it and not let anyone knowwwwwwWell know it's obvioussssssimabench loses, ima loses,He didn't have enough timeeeeeeeimabench lost, ima lost,The time-managing debater is goneeeeeHere I ammmmmmmIn this won debateeeeeJudges please vote meeeeeeeeeA free win never bothered me anywayIt's interesting how this debateIs the first one he quitAnd such a low-caliber debater as meHe should've at least tried something!But something came up,Something important I bet,That forced him to give up,I can understand, perfectly, you seeeeee............! imabench loses, ima loses,He didn't have enough timeeeeeeeimabench lost, ima lost,The time-managing debater is goneeeeeHere I ammmmmmmIn this won debateeeeeJudges please vote meeeeeeeee*a massive castle grows out of the groundMy arguments grow up like a skyscraper into the skyyyydemolishing his rather empty field, crushin' em like fireflieeeesHis red round is like a free gift to meeeeeeeeI've won this debate for sure, because I am too awesome!!!!imabench loses, ima loses,He didn't have enough timeeeeeeeimabench lost, ima lost,The time-managing debater is goneeeeeHere I ammmmmmmIn this won debateeeeeJudges please vote meeeeeeeeeA free win never bothered me anyway
god can not create life, only the dead

anything that is created or constructed is a machine.. this simply proves it i have no beliefs, supernature exceeds nature so its never true, if superman was real he would be natural not supernatural god exist, lies exist supernature is false, and nature is true, opposites machines requires intent supernature exist, false exist, there can be no false without true and no true without false if you sense god you can show it.. god is imaginary human being is nature, life is nature a human being can be mechanical, like you can train a bear to dance live=dead nature is random, machine can not exist without randomness, as machine is specified, not random
god can not create life, only the dead

machine and supernature is the opposite of nature, anything that physically exist is either natural or mechanical, and supernature is false by default, imaginary anything that comes first is nature life=(is)sensory experience, as im dead without my senses=know=nature=true=matter if any knowledge exist about god, god is necessarily true, god is believed not rememered, and not sensed god exist, lies exist hmm god cant intend randomness, as whatever god intends is specified, not random, god can only create machines creation dosnt happen in reality
The Reintroduction of Corporal Punishment Into Schools

Hello all. This debate is on whether or not corporal punishment should be reintroduced into the education system, to be used by teachers and school administrators. I will be arguing in the negative, and my opponent will argue as a proponent of the reintroduction of corporal punishment into the school system.Definitionscorporal punishment: a form of physical punishment that involves the deliberate infliction of pain in order to punish a person convicted of a crime or as retribution for a perceived offence, including physical chastisement such as spanking, paddling or caning of minors by parents, guardians, or school or other officials.school: an institution for educating children. For the purposes of this debate, we will assume that this policy will apply to all of these institutions, not just ones under the jurisdiction of the state.FormatR1: AcceptanceR2: All Main Arguments and ContentionsR3: RebuttalR4: Response and Summary of Previous Rounds/ConclusionPlease note that this debate will be conducted in a formal, respectable manner with extended and well-developed arguments. Each debater will be allowed 8,000 characters to formulate a statement for each round.-----------------------I await my opponent's acceptance.
Europe should stop accepting Syrian refugees

First, I got my numbers wrong, I apologize. Another thing, the refugees have been dubbed "Syrian refugees" mostly because that's where the most violence is going on. Second of all, I don't see the benefits of flooding Europe with these aliens. They would provide cheap labor, but they are destroying the culture of Europe. Rapes have sky rocketed, and most of this is being attributed with the refugees. While terrorist attack *deaths* are low, the actual number of them has gone up tremendously. My point on the American civil war was one of defending what you believe in, not fleeing to pick or choose countries in Europe.
Europe should stop accepting Syrian refugees

Alright sources from: http://www.nationalreview.com... http://www.bbc.com... 1.)Anyways, European security officials have stated that there are far too many migrants for each one of them to security checked, this will increase the probability that ISIS sympathizers can break through and kill. Also, it costs more to resettle refugees in Europe and America than it does to resettle them in neighboring countries. 2.) The average Syrian IQ is 83, which isn't that high compare to Western standards. 3.) I'm all for helping the women and children, but 90 percent of the people coming in are able bodied men, who should be fighting or at least working in Syria. It's kind of obvious that a good portion of these men are ISIS operatives, looking to destroy Europe. 4.) I didn't say to evict all Muslims, I simply stated that the screening process needs to bolstered and reinforced, the Europeans are just letting them through. 5.) Like I said, I'm all for saving the women and children, but the able bodied men should return and go fight for what they think is right. 6.) I didn't say that it was the leading cause, I simply said that there have been numerous attacks since the first wave of refugees were admitted.
Europe should stop accepting Syrian refugees

Thanks for opening this debate. I look forward to a civil discussion. Please provide the sources for the information you just mentioned. Your initial argument focuses solely on incidents of terrorism, but there are other pros and cons to allowing refugees. 1.) it can be economically beneficial. Many European countries have aging and shrinking populations. They will need a larger labor forces to provide the tax revenues to fund government obligations in the near and distant future. 2.) Accepting more immigrants is better for the vibrancy and innovation of the economy. After all, they could be accepting the next Einstein, Steve Jobs, Carlos Slim, Donald Trump or Naghuib Mahfouz (a famous Egyptian novelist) 3.) There is a moral argument that we should be helping our fellow men, women and children who face death, disease and starvation in their home country. 4.) Free democracies must accept some risk in order to be true liberal democracies. We already face risk of home-grown terrorism but that doesn't mean we evict all Muslims or people associated with white supremacy or anti-government groups. 5.) From a numbers perspective, they would be saving more lives than they would be losing when you count people killed from terrorists compared to the lives saved by accepting refugees. 6.) Terrorism is not even close to the leading cause of death in Europe. Obviously more people die from homicide, auto collision, drugs, and probably many more preventable reasons, so the number of people that actually die from terrorist acts, while terrible and tragic, is infinitesimal compared to those. Why deny others their human rights when the negative results are such a small piece of public health and safety? I guess 6 points is enough to get started. I will respond more directly to your first argument in my next argument.
Europe should stop accepting Syrian refugees

This is my first debate, so I'm kind of confused, anyways. I believe that Europe should stop accepting Syrian refugees. This can be proven through statistics. Last year, Europe accepted about one million refugees, and since then, there have been numerous terrorist attacks, all of which had something to with Islam. The refugees are also about ninety percent able bodied men, which is incredibly suspicious. Besides, when the USA had a civil war, our men didn't run away to other countries, they stood and fought. Unlike the men who are almost certainly working for ISIS, which has claimed to sneak in terrorists through the crisis.
Europe should stop accepting Syrian refugees

I have made many points as to how refugees could be a great economic benefit to Europe. Of course, the system is overwhelmed and needs to be beefed up immediately. I agree that this will put some strain on the infrastructure in the short run, but the long-run benefits outweigh the costs. With the aging populations of the West, there will be a competition to bring in young workers to support the older generations. This can be a competitive advantage for Europe. Additionally, the moral argument is so compelling. These people face certain death, after an unknown amount of suffering. If the West can't intervene to stop the killing, the least we can do is accept the people who choose life over death. Absolutely the women and children, and the men too. Terrorism is the scourge of our age, and it is absolutely horrifying and appalling. Yet, it is a danger we face as liberal democracies. We faced it during the early 20th century and we prevailed and were strong. There are so many dangers in modern societies. Terrorism, while scary, is not our greatest danger, and it is far from the leading cause of death and social ill. Europe should continue to accept refugees for their own benefit and to save so many lives.
Work-Life Balance is a myth ; It doesn't exist for the average person.

My resolution is and has been, "Those who claim (that for most people) there is a real work-life balance they are wrong". I never stated any other terms. I NEVER stated that society would be better off with a work week reduction. Only that individual people who are able to survive working 24 hours a week are lucky I'm not suggesting any call-to-action. I'm just stating an observation, and one you happen to disagree with. And again, there's no downward trend in work hours. There was a decline from 12 hours a day to 8-9 hours a day in the early 1900's. It's been nearly entire century without another reduction. A trend is when something continually happens. When something only happens once and then nothing happens for 75+ years, it's not a trend. On family relationships, I have two disagreements: 1) A few holidays each year aren't enough time to truly get to know and build deep meaningful relationships. 2) Living close together is not always a feasibility since everyone has a different economic situation. One might have to, for example, quit their job or double their daily commute. And a myriad of other sacrifices. You state that one can simply just choose to reduce their work hours. Millions of people needs two part-time jobs just to survive. Believe me, if everyone could just decide to accept reduced work hours and still live well, I wouldn't even be having this discussion. But if many people chose to work less hours, they'd have difficulty buying groceries and paying rent. Telling someone "You can work less hours but you'll be destitute" or "You need to work more hours or you won't be competitive enough for our company" isn't giving them too much of a choice. Some countries require paid vacation. The United States doesn't. When someone barely gets vacation time simply because they can't afford it, that's not a real choice. That's not "work-life balance". Regarding your point of increased life span as a counter-argument: 1) One is still going to have a life heavily slanted toward work (and less toward family/leisure/other fulfilling pursuits) for ~50 years, regardless. 2) An increased life span means one can live to 90 instead of 80, but does this mean people have to wait until they're retired (65-75) to have a sizable amount of free time? What happens if you die at age 45? Then you didn't have much of a life and all of those hours at the office didn't matter. 3) People living to 100+ (which is perfectly feasible as medicine gets better) will be more of an economic strain when you're dealing with 20 years of retirement versus 40. Workers will have to work even more hours so they can save more money for a longer retirement and they will have to pay more taxes (to keep Social Security solvent). Increased life span will just make those 50 working years even tougher, and even less of a balance.
Work-Life Balance is a myth ; It doesn't exist for the average person.

I never suggested that a 24 hour work week is the best solution for the economy. If we have to work 40 hours a week, we have to work 40 hours a week. All I'm saying is that it's not balanced, and if we were given the opportunity to work less hours (maybe a future where machines can run more things for us), 24 hours of work would be closer to ideal than 40. 0 hours of work is too little to feel a sense of fulfilment. People generally want to be needed somewhere. But 40 hours, like I outlined, leaves little time to spend with your circle of friends, extended family and with other hobbies/projects you're working on. I'm not saying we can't enjoy or take pride in cooking/eating, our hygiene, our commute and such. But these are not meaningful pursuits in the sense that the more you do them, the more something is built. Relationships are built. Hobbies are built. In Mazlows hierarchy of needs, those things are on the bottom, and alongside work, that leaves little time for people to achieve their highest needs. Another factor is time perception. 9 hours at a regular job often feels like 12-16 hours in slow motion, whereas doing something you really love for hours feels like minutes. Of course, this depends on the job. But if you look at the majority of jobs out there, like Regarding your point on work hours declining, they are lower than centuries ago when children were working 12 hour shifts. But compared to a decade ago, it's worse. With the effects of the recession, it's not uncommon for someone losing their $25/hour job and having to work two $14/hr jobs in its place. Regarding the point of people taking less vacations, it's because vacations (at least in the United States) aren't mandatory and one can be fired at will. If someone takes a vacation and ends up less productive than the person next to them who is working 52 weeks a year instead of 50, as a result, they can get laid off. It's not really a choice when there's no guarentee in place. Being a teacher is a more flexible schedule, but not everyone can be a teacher. Most people have to work 40 hours a week in retail, food service and such. And regardless of whether teachers are underpaid or not, they more than the majority of people.
Work-Life Balance is a myth ; It doesn't exist for the average person.

The 8/8/8 work-life-sleep thing is a myth. It's certainly better than the 12 hours a day people had at factories in the 1800's. But as society gets wealthier and technology improves, shouldn't we get another reduction? There are 24 hours in a work day. 8 hours of sleep 9 hours of work (not 8 because of unpaid lunch hours, and overtime) 1 hour commute 1 hour hygiene/bathing 1 hour eating/cooking 1 hour exercise That leaves 3 hours left, time for maybe a movie and a phone call. God forbid you have to handle a court case, settle bill payments, take a really long poop, fix your broken car, nurse a wound, have a traffic jam hold you up or the like. So you basically have 9 hours of work and MAYBE 3 hours of living, if you can even move and don't have all of your energy sucked. A 3:1 ratio. Living in the biological sense is breathing and maintaining basic functions. LIVING in the actual sense is going out places, traveling, meeting new people, working on projects, enjoying the arts, spirituality and such. Yes, there's the weekend to partially balance it out, if you still have the energy by then. But even so, only being able to actually live 2/7's of your life isn't too good. A real work-life balance would maybe be something like 6 hours per day, 4 days a week.
Alexander Hamilton Brought the Constitution to Life

Alexander Hamilton Brought the Constitution to Life. Hello and welcome to what will be my first debate. This debate will center around Alexander Hamilton who in my opinion is not credited enough for his achievements in the implementation of the Constitution of the United States. My position during this debate is, Alexander Hamilton did more to implement the Constitution of the United States than any other founding father. Of course the opponent has to disagree with my position, which from my personal experiences most people do. Thanks in advance to whoever accepts this challenge. Rules of debate: The first round is for acceptance only. If you have a question concerning the debate please ask in the comment section before accepting. Please detail which founding father you do believe did more to implement the Constitution of the United States in the first round. That's all I have.
Eternalism vs. Presentism

PrefaceIt's been a while since I had my last serious debate. I really want to debate some philosophical topic other than God's existence. Thanks to That1User for accepting :)ResolutionIn this debate I am going to argue that "Eternalism is more likely true than Presentism", while my opponent is going to argue for the reverse, "Presentism is more likely true than Eternalism".As a result, the BoP is shared.DefinitionsAll definitions are to be adapted from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy or any other academic, online source for philosophy.Rules72h per round.10000 characters per argument.2000 Elo required to vote and participate.BoP is shared.1. No forfeits2. No new arguments in the final round3. Keep it civil.4. No trolling or deconstruction semantics5. No "kritiks" of the topic6. This debate is closed, accepting without admission is against the rules.7. Violation of any rule or the structure will result in a loss.StructureIn round one and two respectively Con and Pro are going to present their case. This may include negative approaches, i.e., highlighting distinct insufficiencies of the opposing ontology. The remaining rounds are to be used for rebuttals. Con waives the last round, such that everyone has an equal opportunity to talk.
It is unethical to buy an SUV

Thank you for joining this debate, First I will state my points, SUVs are harmful to the environment. SUVs use a lot of gas, more than most other cars, so there is more gas emissions and contributes to global warming like two regular cars. >> SUV owners collectively paid almost $9 billion – $350 each – more for gasoline in 2002 in the United States than they would if SUVs were as fuel-efficient as the average car. This translates into 151 million extra barrels of oil consumed in the United States in 2002 to fuel SUVs. >> The fuel efficiency of engines increases by an average of 1.9 percent per year, but automakers chose to use these efficiency gains to increase acceleration and add weight to vehicles (mostly in SUVs) instead of increasing fuel economy. SUVs are dangerous to other motorists. SUVs are much larger and bulkier than most cars on the road. If an SUV crashed into a smaller vehicle, the passengers in the smaller vehicle would be in greater danger than if they were crashed against another smaller car. >>While SUV occupants face significant risks from rollover crashes, occupants of other cars face major risks from SUVs as well. In frontal crashes, SUVs kill 4.3 car drivers for every one SUV driver who is killed. Thanks,
People not born in the United States should be eligible to run for president.

For the purposes of this discussion on presidential eligibilty, if Con agrees, we can divide US citizens into 4 categories1) People who were born in the US to US citizen parents 2) People who were born outside the US to US citizen parents 3) People who were born in the US to non US citizen parents 4) People who were born outside the US to non US citizen parents but are naturalized citizens I am arguing that not just people from Categories 2 and 3 should be eligible, but also people from Category 4.I have three main points to argue:1)My response to the argument about foreign loyalty is that it can prevented by the requirement that they must have been a permanent resident of the United States for at least 14 years before they are eligible. 2) The eligibility requirement is archaic. It was made to allay concerns that foreign aristocrats would immigrate to the new nation and use their wealth and influence to impose a monarchy on the new nation. This was made a long time ago when the British were ruling the United States. It is highly unlikely that foreign aristocrats in this day could get elected to be president just because they have a lot of wealth. All this requirement does is prevent immigrants from running for office despite them being loyal to the United States. In a nation characterized by over five hundred years of continous large scale immigration from Europe, Africa, and Asia this goes against American values. 3) To make sure that Category 4 is loyal to the United States, a law such as the Hatch bill could be introduced. It states "A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been for 20 years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible to the Office of President, is not ineligible to that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States."This would ensure that people who have a proven record of loyalty to the United States such as Arnold Schwarzeneger would be eligible to run for president if they wanted to.
People not born in the United States should be eligible to run for president.

The 14th Amendment governs this issue, and states in part that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." There are three ways in which someone can claim American citizenship. The first is called "jus soli," which means right of the soil. In other words, you were born here. The second is called "jus sanguinis," or right of blood. This means your parents were citizens. What makes a native, or natural born citizen, is when someone can claim both jus soli and jus sanguinis; they were born in America to citizen parents. The parents can be naturalized for jus sanguinis to apply, but the point is that they are citizens and therefore "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." They have no loyalty to a foreign power, having “absolutely and entirely renounce[d] and abjure[d] all allegiance and fidelity” to their native land, and sworn their loyalty to the United States.The 14th Amendment (and supporting contemporary writings) shows the clear intent of the Founding Fathers: That anyone holding office in America must be American by birth, not by naturalization. The worry was that someone who still owed allegiance to another nation (and therefore, foreign interests that could be contrary to the interest of the United States) would have a child, and then raise that child in a foreign land. Giving the child citizenship would then allow the child--raised in another culture with another set of interests--would then come back to the US and run for office. The presidential eligibility clause in Section 1992 was written to stop this from happening.The Founding Fathers sought to ensure that only native-born American citizens, born in this country to parents loyal to the United States, could run for President. This made certain that the nation would be safe from foreign influence brought in by non-Americans who may or may not have Americans' best interests at heart.