BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Emilrose should lose the vote battle

Loser My opponent has misunderstood my argument and in doing so has failed to respond to the argument, dropping the argument and by all rights losing the debate. Definition from R1 "Lose-To Fail to win" My main argument is that the debate should be removed. If the debate is removed, if no longer exists so neither debater can win. Looking back at the definition which was prescriptive as mentioned in round 1, we can see that a removed debate would technically count as a loss to both participants. This is what I was saying in my previous round. If we acknowledge that the debate should be removed, than we acknowledge that neither person should win. This meets the definition of "fail to win". My opponent by not offering any rebuttals to my argument that Airmax should remove the debate has made it so the judges should accept the assertion (backed by evidence) that Airmax should remove the debate. My opponent did make a statement that almost looked like she was trying to make a rebuttal. She states that it is unlikely that vote battles would become as popular as rape battles. Besides the fact that not everything has to be as popular as a rape battle to qualify as spam, the vote battles were very common after Stalin did them and they were all pretty much removed unless Airmax missed a few. The ease of setting up the battles and sitting back doing nothing outweighed any fear of losing ELO. This argument was the main argument I used, and if it succeeds I win the debate. Emilrose' battle should be removed, even if her side is more likely to get the attention of juggle, it doesn't take away the fact the debate should be removed. She can fix the site by starting a letter mailing campaign or something that isn't as easily ignored as debate on a site they rarely ever even look it anyway. This is assuming a website that helps radicalize the far right and far left by helping them hone their arguments is even a net good for society. Summary The winner is clear. The definition of lose is fail to win, meaning if the debate was removed both debaters would technically lose as there would be no winner. My opponent makes no rebuttal to my argument that Airmax should remove the debate as he has done with every other vote battle that followed the one Stalin did. Every other argument I made is a bonus, if this argument works (and it should) those are not neccesary, as is her argument. She never argued for why the vote battle should stay as opposed to be removed. So vote pro Thank you Emilrose for taking this debate. It was really you who challenged me in the comments. This is the first debate I have been able to manage to finish in a while and it was fun. I look forward to debating you again in the tournament should you win.
President Trump on religious liberty.

I think that if a teacher doesn't feel comfortable teaching about evolution, then s/he should not teach science class. That's the US curriculum so if it make him/her uncomfortable then maybe try a different subject? When you become a teacher you learn how to teach all kinds of subjects so maybe they should try something else. Also, atheists are not trying to take away your rights nor are they trying to force you to become atheists. To be honest, I feel like Christians are more likely to do that sort of thing than an atheist. I mean whether you think Kim Davis should have been arrested or not, she was taking away a gay couple's right to not be discriminated against. I mean, come on. Christians have been known to empirically take away people's rights and still lobby to do it now. Have you ever heard stories of an Atheist Inquisition? Or atheists lobbying the government to make abortion difficult for women? Not to say atheists are perfect but if we are honest with ourselves, who is most likely to stampede on rights?
President Trump on religious liberty.

Fair enough. I hold a different view. Kim Davis while not perfect shoulkd not have been arrested for not participating in gay marriage. Christian teachers should not be censured for a mentioning Jesus in passing, or not wanting to teach evolution. This is religious liberty, that I don't have the right to force my religion on you, nor does an atheist have the right to take my rights or force me to be an atheist. I am libertarian on religion.
President Trump on religious liberty.

Go to ACLJ.org and read how Jewish and Christians are being perscuted worldwide. Christian rights in America are under attack by secular leftists from a Christian baker being run out of business for not wanting to participate in a gay wedding in America to the fact that Christians are not allowed to pray opr teach creation in schools, but secular leftists can teach evolution in the classroom. Present both views to students and let them decide. That way we have liberty and choice. Another thing that bothers me is that teacher has a gag rule from mentioning Jesus in the classroom even in passing, and I view this as both a right to believe and a right to speak for anyone who wants to mention Jesus. Also, in Muslim countries, Christians are tortured, and torture is always wrong regardless of who the victim is in my not so humble opinion. It is refreshing to have any President who tries to stand for Jesus and the Bible.
Age does not matter in a relationship

The first negative speaker has agreed with me that as long as the two people are consenting both can understand the needs and desires of their partner. She argued however that a 15 year old could not have the emotional and regular intelligence to have a healthy and fulling relationship. I believe this is wrong because there are many 15 year olds now adays who are matured at the age of 15 and are quite bright to understand the contents of a relationship and can make decisions for themselves at such age. She also said that if a 25 year old partner wants to invest in the relationship then it would be his/ her duty to wait 3 years before advancing the relationship further. I have questioned you my audience in my previous arguments emphasising that why is it anyone's business as to how their age will affect their relationship? who are we to decide their future based on just number? it is not our place to judge them just as it is not our place to judge a married couple of different races. Our first speaker spoke to you about maturity being a serious factor in relationships, but would like to point out that it is not necessarily determined by age. She also spoke about Age is but a number " it"s compatibility that counts. And also older partners have more life experience. Our second speaker spoke about is that love or just power of money? Stating that it isn't our decision to determine that. Finally, education; it isn't relevant to age, in fact young people learn faster than adult. The bottom line is, every relationship has things to overcome, but if they can overcome them, it only makes the relationship stronger. And believe it or not, relationships with age gaps are very common these days. The way you were raised just determines if you accept it or not. There is no such thing as young or old, only younger and older. You will always have someone younger than you or older than you." Besides, the only thing that should matter in a relationship is love, and if they truly love each other, nothing else should matter. Head speaker, opposition and members of the audience, in the final analysis, there is no right or wrong answer to this question, but we think that this debate will go on for a long time. Does age matter? Surely the answer has to be that it should only matter to the couple concerned. If they are happy with the age gap then everyone else should respect their feelings and wishes and leave them to get on with it. As parents, they can only be there to pick up the pieces.
Age does not matter in a relationship

"Is that love or just power of money?" It isn't our decision to determine that. If a 20 year old is dating a 40 year old they are clearly dating for a reason whether it is love or money. For one thing, love is definitely a factor in the relationship and if the woman or man has money it"s an advantage but what you are saying is stereotypical. Why does a young woman have to be a gold digger when dating an older man with money, can't it be just because she loves the guy? It is stated that you think that an older man married to a younger woman is a slight safety hazard when we disagree. Men as a whole are very strong and more dominant and are there to protect the woman regardless if a woman is older than the man. Today we have social media websites like eHarmony or match.com that when you are signing up for those you put your likes and dislikes, what you like in a male or female, and when it comes down to matching you with the right person, it comes down to the compatibility you have with each other. Therefore I am pro for saying age does not matter in a relationship because age is just a number. Head speaker, opposition and members of the audience, in conclusion, age does not matter in relationships. The only determining factor is love and happiness. And for us to say it is wrong for a 45-year-old to be married to a 23-year-old is wrong. It is not our place for us to judge them just as it is not our place to judge two married people that are of different races. Age-gap-relationships can work, depending on who you put yourself around, people who will not accept it or those people who really love you that will accept and support what you do no matter what. Age shouldn't be a factor in love. Love just happens with no limits because you can't control who you love even if it is someone 10 years older or younger than you therefore we are for why age should not matter in a relationship.maturity isn't correlated to age. Experience is what develops maturity and some people go through more in their life in a short span of time than others. If both of the partners are mature then the age is negligible. We believe that as long both parties are of legal age, they should be allowed to date/marry/have children/ etc. because they are both adults.
Age does not matter in a relationship

Age is but a number " it"s compatibility that counts. Ultimately, as long as you get on well, share similar interests, have chemistry and want the same things from life, age doesn"t really matter! Relationships with age gaps are very common these days. The way you were raised just determines if you accept it or not. Love is the only factor that should really matter in relationships. If a woman is dating a younger man then the woman can show the man what she likes and mature him to her standards. He will become more likely to grow up. Age does not define whether or not the relationship will work or not. In the article, "Does age really matter in relationships?" the writer states, "Based on these current trends, age does not matter when it comes to two consenting adults making a conscious decision to be together, regardless of the reasons why." This is true because if a woman and a man both love each other and age doesn't affect their moral decisions as to why they are together then why is it anyone's business as to how their age will affect their relationship? Who are we to decide their future just by a number? When you"re out on a date and the person you are dating seems a little bit older than you or maybe a bit younger than you, you can't ask their age because it"s rude to do so. Take a look at Hugh Hefner who dates younger women all the time with no problem or how about Mariah Carey and Nick Cannon who are 12 years apart and just had twins together. Therefore, a relationship is about a strong emotional connection between two people, usually of the opposite genders, usually with the man earning and the woman caring for the domestic issues. There are however huge variants of the norm, and there are mindless relationships between the youth of today which involve having sex for no reason at a young age and ruining their lives but this attitude is not due to age, it's due to culture, lack of discipline and lack of genuine sex education. Why do you think that even in a developing country like India there are barely any teenage pregnancies whilst in developed countries it's a major issue.It is because when you give people lack of discipline and too much freedom, the foolish ones use it wrongly, whilst the norm and wiser ones use it correctly. Thus, you are giving the rebels as your entire case, I think you are mistaken. Age does not matter in relationships. The only determining factor is love and happiness. And for us to say it is wrong for a 45-year-old to be married to a 23-year-old is wrong. It is not our place for us to judge them just as it is not our place to judge two married people that are different races. Age-gap-relationships can work, depending on who you put yourself around, people who will not accept it or those people who really love you that will accept and support what you do no matter what. Age shouldn't be a factor in love. Love just happens with no limits because you can't control who you love even if it is someone 10 years older or younger than you therefore we are for why age should not matter in a relationship.
Age does not matter in a relationship

In response to your comment about friendships. I thought this debate was about romantic relationships, I agree with people having friendships with older people in fact I have several friendships with people older than myself. I believe if two people of any age want to be friends they should be friends both, come from different generations, and could give each other inside information on how their world works. Since, however I interpreted this debate of whether or, not age differences matter between I am assuming a huge age gap. I don't' have a problem with them as long as both parties are 18,or 17 and this point I can, and will not be moved against. To use the age 15 again. If their 25 year old partner really wanted to invest in the relationship I think it would be his/hers duty to wait the three years before, advancing the relationship further.
Age does not matter in a relationship

In response to what you said about you dont think the 15 year old could have the emotion and intelligence but as i stated before in my first argument people mature at different rates so that 15 year old could already be mature for his or her age to be in such relationship. Secondly, i would like to point out that older partners have more life experience. If you"re the younger partner in the relationship, you may well find that an older partner is great in terms of advice, stability, communication, commitment and general life experience. As a person gets older, age tends to not matter so much. Relationships are not about age, but depends on how a person views their life, the situation they are in, and how willing they are to move forward with or without age being an influence on their decisions. Education isn't relevant to age, in fact young people learn faster than adult so in conclusion your debate stands false. I think that intercourse is what most individuals think a relationship is. We are assuming that everyone considers a relationship to mean something romantic. This is where our thinking process goes wrong; a romantic relationship and a friendly relationship are very similar. What makes it different? Many individuals been in relationships and have dated guys their age and much older. The difference is too minimal to notice. Modern times have come to convince people that there are certain age requirements for a relationship, yet I am here to persuade you towards the opposite.
Age does not matter in a relationship

My worthy opponent and my audience, the motion for the debate is "Age does not matter in a relationship". I the speaker of the affirmative team believe that this statement is true. According to the Oxford Dictionary, age is defined as the length of time an individual has existed while relationships are defined as the way in which two or more people or groups regard and behave towards each other. I will be talking to you about the major factors that are important in a relationship such as the maturity levels, the life experience,is that love or just power of money? , education and while age is but a number- its compatibility that counts. The only thing that should matter in a relationship is love, and if they truly love each other, nothing else should matter. First of all, you can find someone with the right maturity level. This normally applies more to women dating older men than the other way around. The fact that women mature quicker than men is one of the reasons why dating older men often appeals! It shouldn't matter what age difference there are in relationships. Whether it is an older woman dating a younger man or an older man dating a significantly younger woman it shouldn't matter as long as they both are of legal age. Statistics show that there are exactly 858,000 married couples in the U.S. where the husband is 15-19 years older than his wife and there are exactly 161,000 married couples in the U.S. where the wife is 15-19 years older than her husband. What matters is the feelings and love shared by the two companions and if they are compatible with each other. In other words, "It isn't about age, it's about maturity." Age is not an important factor in relationships, and what should be the age difference between the two people who don't think there's a set age difference - it varies through life. For instance, a seventy year old and a fifty five year old are going to attract a lot less negative attention than a 16 year old and a 31 year old, but the age difference is the same. As with all things on this topic, it's down to the two people in question. If they are both mature enough to make their own decisions, then why shouldn't they? Of course, the question that begs is how old is mature? And frankly, I don't think there's a set age for that. People mature at different rates.
Socialism Is Not Necessarily Authoritarian

As suggested by pro I will take up the view that communist socialism is necessarily authoritarian leaving other forms of socialism to one side. I treat authoritarian here to mean using physical and legal constraint upon the membership of society to enforce the following of a line. Of course all countries do this the US more severely than many, too an extant governance in and of itself even if it is governance by lot is authoritarian. Libertarians tend to seek a license for something or some freedom that current government imposes would like to impose upon them. Any government may be seen as arbitrary from one point of view or another. Communism differs other forms of government in that it cleaves to a model where concepts so basic as right or wrong, freedom of the individual, are seen as among the locii of class struggle. With the best communist intentions it becomes possible for one to be guilty of recidivism through ones decisions or actions. At worst it collapses into pure authoritarianism. This is a consequence of it dialectic-materialist roots.
Socialism Is Not Necessarily Authoritarian

(As mentioned by my opponent we agreed to only discus communist socialism in this debate rather than socialism as a whole so for any voters please read this debate as "Communism Is Not Necessarily Authoritarian".) A couple of people in the comments made the point that it was somehow obvious that socialism is not necessarily authoritarian, the problem with this is that it isn't to many people. I often see arguments online where socialism is spoken of as if it is somehow a totalitarian ideology or this ridiculous new trend where the right wing is described as advocating "economic freedom". This is essentially my attempt to both counter this (in whatever limited way I can) and have something I can point people to when they accuse socialists of being authoritarian. Communism is an ideology that really advocates one thing and that is the abolition of private property (to quote from the Communist Manifesto: "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.") however communism (once fully realized) also has other characteristic features those being: Abolition of classes Abolition of the state Collectivization of the means of production, exchange and distribution So my task is essentially to show that a collectivized society lacking property, a state or classes is not necessarily authoritarian. I am not going to argue that certain strains of communism (such as Leninism) have not produced horrific forms of tyranny but simply that this is not a property inherit to communism. My challenge to con is to show that these 4 qualifiers of communism are authoritarian. Authoritarianism In Non Communist Society Those with considerable amounts of property have authority over those who do not. If you are paid to do something you are much more likely to do it even if it's something you would be very unlikely to do otherwise. This is almost the basis for many professions such as prostitution which are often considered to be demeaning. This is also the basis for the entire wage system which I might expand on in the next argument if necessary. Anti Authoritarian Communist Ideologies There exist many forms of communism which it would be ridiculous to describe as authoritarian. Most (though not all) of these are forms of anarchist communism which seek to liberate humanity from both the oppression of an authoritarian state and an authoritarian capitalist corporate structure rather than impose any authoritarian structures on society.
We dont Know why we are here or how we got here

First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution. Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind." A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that: . . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1 2: Everything is nothing. I dont think you understand that everything around us that we know is nothing.