BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Libya was better under Muammar Qaddafi

IMPORTANT NOTE: I started this debate which was accepted by someone who immediately forfeited. I am starting a fresh one for serious candidates only. I can take pro or con depending on what you want. No forfeiture, semantics or trolling please. First round will be acceptance and final round will be conclusion (no new evidence/arguments just a summary of previous ones.) Choose whether you want pro or con in the first round. Resolved: Libya was a better nation under Muammar Qaddafi's rule (September 1969 - October 2011) The values we will be debating in this debate are: 1. Libya's economy (as a whole and relating to the people of Libya) 2. Libya's path forward (under Qaddafi versus now) 3. Libya's state of society (Unrest/Stability, Rule of Law, State of Government, Popular satisfaction with the state of Libya) 4. Libya's formal/informal international relations (Libya's allies then v.s. now, foreign investment, Libya's power in the world) 5. Libya's development (Equality, democracy, freedom and liberty) I look forward to a good debate :D
Libya was better under Muammar Qaddafi

Oh dear. Now my opponent has just resorted to blatant plagiarism. For, with a careful reading of my opponent's arguments, you can clearly see it was all copied and pasted from http://www.nairaland.com.... Please, don't plagiarize!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now, for a rebuttal. "Before Gaddafi, literacy in Libya was only 10%. Since Gaddafi’s leadership, literacy has risen to 90%."This, unlike most of your claims, is true. Education has always been free, under the monarchy and during Gaddafi’s reign. "Undernourishment in Libya is at 2% – a figure lower than that of the world center of “democracy,” the United States of America."Funny, the World Bank says it's 5%. Which, is actually the same number as in the US. Got a source for your fact? I bet not. Since you just copied it and pasted it. "Education from grade school through to college is free in Libya."And I bet it's worth that much."Healthcare is free and Libyan pharmacies and hospitals are comparable to high-quality European facilities."Under Gaddafi, and especially from the late 1970s onwards, if you were unlucky enough to go to a state hospital you would have had to (a) bring your own bedding if you wanted to sleep in clean bedding; (b) get your family or friends to bring in food for you; and (c) put up with appalling standards of hygiene, including reused syringes. If you didn’t want any of this, then would have had to find the money to go to a private hospital."For any medical care, operations, or health treatments that are unavailable in Libya, the citizen is given full expenses for travel, treatment and accommodation abroad to wherever is required for the treatment to be given."This is an utter lie. My opponent is again unable to substantiate his claim with a source."On marriage, each couple is gifted $60,000 to do with as they please; furnish their home, take a holiday, honeymoon, buy car, etc."This is a complete fabrication. It never happened either before or during Gaddafi’s reign. In fact, a huge number of people in Libya are unable to marry because they cannot afford to rent, buy or build a home."Libyans have a direct participatory democracy based on People’s Conferences that puts other “democracies” to shame."Oh really? Then why was Libya ranked 161st out of 167 nations in the EIU Democracy Index?"Prior to Qaddafi revolutionary re-making, Libya was a large US military base used for bombing trainings. Libya was home to the largest US military base in North Africa."And after Qaddafi, Libya was home to appalling detention centers where hundreds of Libyans were arrested and even executed for nothing more than criticizing Qaddafi.Hey- RationalMadman, I respect you. But it's hard to after this. First, you forfeit the first round. Second, you plagiarize when you finally enter the third round. Can you have some respect for me, post real arguments that are your own, and participate in the debate? Thanks. I would really appreciate it. Your friend, DenyEverything.
Libya was better under Muammar Qaddafi

Before Gaddafi, literacy in Libya was only 10%. Since Gaddafi’s leadership, literacy has risen to 90%.Undernourishment in Libya is at 2% – a figure lower than that of the world center of “democracy,” the United States of America.Education from grade school through to college is free in Libya.Healthcare is free and Libyan pharmacies and hospitals are comparable to high-quality European facilities.Libya ranks No. 53 on the United Nations Index of Human Development.Libya has the highest standard of living in Africa. In 1969 before Qaddafi it was the lowest in the world at just $60 per year incomeLibya gives free land and seeds to anyone who wants to farm that land.There is virtually no homelessness in Libya as everyone is given a home.Women in Libya have equal rights, not only as a philosophy, but in practice.Under Gaddafi’s oil-revenue-sharing program, each Libyan gets $500 (Dollars) deposited into his or her bank account each month.For any medical care, operations, or health treatments that are unavailable in Libya, the citizen is given full expenses for travel, treatment and accommodation abroad to wherever is required for the treatment to be given.No other country in the world does this. Yet they say no democracy in Libya.On marriage, each couple is gifted $60,000 to do with as they please; furnish their home, take a holiday, honeymoon, buy car, etc.Libyans have a direct participatory democracy based on People’s Conferences that puts other “democracies” to shame.---- Now tell me which western government does this?Prior to Qaddafi revolutionary re-making, Libya was a large US military base used for bombing trainings. Libya was home to the largest US military base in North Africa.This is what they mean by peace: let your country be used by a nuclear-armed state (that previously used them on civilians and which justifies this horrendous act to this very day) to practice bombing targets while you spent your time partying.
Evolution is more true than Creationism

It's simple. I am saying Evolution is more true than Creationism. We can't know for sure that Evolution or Creationism are definitely true or false. What I'm saying is that Evolution has a higher chance of being true than Creationism. Here's a quote from your Round 1 acceptance statement. "From what I know of "truth", theres only two sides of the coin, truth and false." Wrong. 1. There are not "two sides of the coin" when the coin was flipped in the distant past. You don't know for sure. But you can use evidence to find which way it landed. "If I prove any of your points wrong..." I would say that I was wrong if you did that! But, you haven't. I have disproved all of your points, and you didn't use your time in the end of Round 3 to provide rebuttals. Instead you are dancing around my comment, misinterpreting it to the highest degree. I don't have to prove Evolution to be 100% true. I just have to prove it having a higher likelihood of being true. Your turn Con.
Evolution is more true than Creationism

Also, you might have not read the title: "Evolution is more true than Creationism". This doesn't mean that I am proving that Evolution is 100% true. What? if evolution is not 100% true, it’s not true at all. It’s either true or it’s not true.Are you basically saying that your position is not falsifiable? If I prove any of your points wrong, you’ll simply say… “Oh, I don’t have to be right. So your point is irrelevant.” What’s the point in debating with you any further?
Evolution is more true than Creationism

Well the evidence for creationism is pretty much common knowledge. One can look at the human body (e.g. the eyes, ears, etc) and be impressed by its amazing functional complexity. Something that is consistent with the idea of a designer." - Con Well, there is the "Who created God" argument, the "SO MANY GODS" argument, and so-on. 1. Fossil Record Comparing Apples With Oranges "Just because some species share a likeness with each other..." The fossil record isn't only used to find species with similar characteristics. The fossil record also finds ancestors of species. It's like comparing a person to his sibling, and then finding the parent. Not apples to oranges. It was complex back in the day So what? Evolution is not concerned with complexity. Complexity is only a temporary by-product of evolution. "I kinda compare this to like saying the cavemen had an xbox 360 back in the day." If the cavemen had an Xbox360, how does it benefit their life? Evolution is only concerned with whether you live or not. If you live to reproduce, your "sub-species" lives on. If not, your "sub-species" dies out. If you have an Xbox360, it almost certainly doesn't change your evolutionary path. However, Xbox360's are by-products of (human) evolution. Same with complexity. Evolution doesn't seem to happen presently "One cannot observe evolution taking place." Did you know that a couple hundred thousand years ago, all humans were lactose intolerant? And one mutation that allowed one person to consume lactose spread, and now 2/3 of the people in the world aren't lactose intolerant? This is evolution. "For example fruit flies reproduce like every 20 minutes, why don"t we see the big evolution that the Darwinist insist on that takes place?" There are some links that want to meet you, Con. http://sploid.gizmodo.com... http://evolution.berkeley.edu... http://www.wired.com... http://www.futurity.org... You can even press Z or R twice (do a barrel roll) for evolution! http://www.independent.co.uk... 2. Pseudogenes It's possible that there aren't any "Pseudogenes" "Can one know for certain that there is any junk DNA when scientist today are uncovering the fact that some Pseudogenes they initially thought was useless is really functional?" Yes. If a pseudogene is found to be intended to do a task that we make up for, we can be almost completely certain that it's a psuedogene. Also, you might have not read the title: "Evolution is more true than Creationism". This doesn't mean that I am proving that Evolution is 100% true. Here is are three questions that show that Creationism is probably not true: 1. Who created God? 2. What about the other gods? 3. Why doesn't prayer work?
Evolution is more true than Creationism

Well the evidence for creationism is pretty much common knowledge. One can look at the human body (e.g. the eyes, ears, etc) and be impressed by its amazing functional complexity. Something that is consistent with the idea of a designer. "First of all, evolution is backed up by many discoveries and scientific papers. Here are two discoveries backing evolution:" –Pro Just cause someone can find papers by scientist on say cold fusion or global warming, doesn’t make either two anymore true. But I’ll go ahead and refute the two discoveries you brought up. 1. Fossil Record Comparing Apples with oranges I have my doubts about the fossil record to proving evolution entirely. You’re basically comparing apples with oranges and saying they were plucked by the same tree. Just because some species share a likeness with each other, doesn’t mean they evolved from Darwin’s tree of life. Some computers share a likeness with each other, doesn’t mean they evolved naturally, even if you find a few in third world countries. It was complex back in the day. A problem with evolution, it’s basic prediction is that the species went from simple to complex. In reality this really isn’t so, for example Trilobites had apposition like eyes in the Cambrian. I kinda compare this to like saying the cavemen had an xbox 360 back in the day. http://www.nature.com... Even in the fossil record one can look and find nothing simple enough that shows any transitional forms from non-life to life. Even the Precambrian fossil are too complex. Evolution doesn’t seem to happen presently One cannot observe evolution taking place. Some people are like, “Dude, that’s because it takes millions of years for it to happen.” Well this might be true when talking about the human race, but not necessarily true with other organism. For example fruit flies reproduce like every 20 minutes, why don’t we see the big evolution that the Darwinist insist on that takes place? 2. Pseudogenes It’s possible that there aren’t any “Pseudogenes” I’m somewhat skeptic with the Pseudogene argument. Can one know for certain that there is any junk DNA when scientist today are uncovering the fact that some Pseudogenes they initially thought was useless is really functional? I’ll bring up the account of beta-globin. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;
Evolution is more true than Creationism

First of all, evolution is backed up by many discoveries and scientific papers. Here are two discoveries backing evolution: 1. Fossil Record The fossil record includes numerous fossils showing evolution. From tiktaalik to Australopithecus garhi, it is clear that evolution is a fact. 2. Pseudogenes Pseudogenes are like normal DNA code except that they are deactivated from a mutation. It is much like a spelling error in a book or a misplaced island on a map. If two species have the same pseudogene, it is very strong evidence for common descent, one of the key factors for evolution. Here is one more link that will basically sum up evolution's vast collection of evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org...
God is real

In your argument you pose various questions which we currently have no answer to and you say "I don't know the answer, Therefore I'm going to assume it's God". This is obviously flawed. The fact that we currently don't know something doesn't mean you can just come up with an answer without anything to support it. The correct course of action in that situation would be to say 'I don't know' and investigate the matter to find the true answer. So if you want this debate to go somewhere, Post actuall evidence for the existence of god.
God is real

I think that god is defiantly a real person. I am a person who believes in him. If you don't believe me, Ask yourself the question. . . How did I get here on earth(other than coming out of a mothers stomach) who created the earth. Who gave you a choice to come here? What happens when we die? (we go to heaven w/god. . . Or Hell W/ Satan) Come on people, The answer Is god. GOD is the answer to all of our question. LOOK it up!
People with healthy weight in American society are oppressed more than obese people

Treating the obese with acceptance means that, while TheOrator points out, just because it's being treated with acceptance doesn't necessarily mean it will be more common and the other more rare, it is simply being promoted as an unhealthy lifestyle, and it ends there. Furthermore, obese children have more of a likelihood of becoming obese adults, as studies have shown time and again. "Yeah, you can say that, but it's not true. Oppression is when you are being forced to do something against your will, not when you want you do something because of your will." This reminds me of the statement that government is a necessary evil to prevent tyranny in US constitutionalism. If people were able to do whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, however they wanted without some constitutional restraints, other people's liberties are infringed, therefore said to be oppression. Same way can be applied to this topic. Other people choose to be obese and it is out of control and growing, therefore the other people (for example, there are those who don't prefer to be in the company of obese people) are oppressed and squeezed out.
People with healthy weight in American society are oppressed more than obese people

Thanks TheOrator for accepting this challenge. In acceptance of my opponents claim of logical fallacy, I will explain that if the theory that I previously stated were irrefutable, there will be unforeseen consequences in terms of psychological and social well being. In fact, they are being claimed today. Many severely obese people show reluctance of attending to public outings[1] because they are self-conscious, mainly about their appearance. As such, self-esteem problems and anxiety sets in the long run. Furthermore, assuming a realist perspective (realism: awareness or acceptance of the facts and necessities of life[2]), the position that we should accept the unhealthy health-wise, equally shouldn't go ignored or accepted, but healthiness shall remain a necessity of life. And by claiming that I "proved" something when he refuted it, he really meant what I believe was "burden of poof." Psychologically speaking from an individual perspective, you can say that the naturally unfulfilled longing to being with one's own kind is oppression. My original argument had to do with the reason for oppression is at the least, such a longing and desire among certain individuals. Works Cited: 1.) http://thinforlife.med.nyu.edu... 2.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
People with healthy weight in American society are oppressed more than obese people

I'll take the neg on this case, arguing that healthy people are not more oppressed than the obese. Opression is defined as: the act of subjugating by cruelty, force, etc. or the state of being subjugated in this way[1] Although my opponent states how there are groups which advocate that the obese be treated equally, this does not prove that the unhealthy are being opressed in any way whatsoever. My opponent proves that the more accepted the obese become, the more obese people there will be, and the more obese people there are, the less healthy people there are. However, this is a logical fallacy as shown by Occam's Razor[2]. Occam's razor states that when an argument that assumes too much to be proven true, it is likely to be false. This applies because my opponent's entire case revolves around the fact that the more accepted obesity becomes, the more people will become obese, which is a huge assumption. To make this argument is the same as making the argument that th emore accepted Homosexuals become, the more Homosexuals there will be, which is rediculous. Further more, simply there being less healthy people is not oppression unless the government comes down, forces food down your throat, and thus strips you of your right to be healthy. I don't advocate Obesity as an actual disease unless you have a legitimate medical condition that affects your metabolism, but there is no reason to assume that either the healthy or the obese are being oppressed. Works Cited: 1.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2.) http://math.ucr.edu...
People with healthy weight in American society are oppressed more than obese people

I would take the time to make my resolution that people with a healthier weight in American society are oppressed more than those with an unhealthy weight. My arguments stem from the weight acceptance movement in America which attempts to normalize unhealthy eating habits. The more people accept unhealthy lifestyles, the more unhealthy people there will be. The more unhealthy people there are, the chances of seeing other healthy people on the street becomes more rare. The more rare a type becomes, the less chances of being able to associate with a type besides ourselves becomes. So, we cannot have true freedom of association. Those with a healthier weight are becoming more rare in American society, therefore that particular type of group must be oppressed. In addition, no government action to reduce the issue has seen results. On the other side, you see obesity being promoted as something of a crutch that doesn't need attention, such as the welfare carts at Walmart. It sounds more accepted, therefore there are more people with obesity every day in America.
There should naturally be a gender pay gap

'Should' was qualified with naturally. You can decontruct anything, but it won't help you understand what anyone's talking about, or what they mean. Women by nature give birth and raise the young. That's why a woman's health is so important. That's why women's nipples lactate and mens don't. It's difficult to look after a child and provide for that child at the same time time. Children need constant attention. That's why it's natural that the man is responsible to provide for the family.
There should naturally be a gender pay gap

Should : 1.used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions: http://www.bing.com... By the resolution, my opponent is arguing that there should be a wage gap. His argument is merely I quote "A woman's career is not nearly as important to a man as the woman's health because men are naturally more attracted to fertile woman who can raise a family" Yet, he has not proved to us that a man's job is more important than a woman's job. My opponent failed to rebut any of my arguments. Maybe he can redeem himself in the next round.
There should naturally be a gender pay gap

There should be a gender pay gap because men are naturally more career driven than women. Men are by nature more career driven because they're more responsible to provide for a family. Men should naturally compete to have the best job because women are naturally attracted to men who can provide for a family. A woman's career is not nearly as important to a man as the woman's health because men are naturally more attracted to fertile woman who can raise a family. Women are by nature more nurturing because they're more responsible to look after the young. If a woman is raising a family it does interrupt their career to some extent.