BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All Races are equal

On average, Orientals are slower to mature, less fertile, less sexually active, less aggressive, and have larger brains and higher IQ scores. Blacks are at the other pole. Whites fall in the middle, but closer to Orientals than to Blacks . http://www.harbornet.com......; You can notice in the link that ive just sent you is a chart and text explaining in detail how important genes are , and that we differ a lot . Trait Blacks Whites Orientals Brain Size: Cranial capacity 1,267 1,347 1,364 Cortical neurons (millions) 13,185 13,665 13,767 Bigger brains have more brain cells and this leads to higher IQs. The races vary in brain size. The Collaborative Perinatal Project followed more than 35,000 children from birth to seven years. Orientals had larger brains than Whites at birth, four months, one year, and seven years. Whites had larger brains than Blacks at all ages (see Chart 2). The data on adults in Chart 2 come from a sample of 6,325 U.S. Army personnel. The more north the people went "Out of Africa," the harder it was to get food, gain shelter, make clothes, and raise children. So the groups that evolved into today's Whites and Orientals needed larger brains, more family stability, and a longer life. But building a bigger brain takes time and energy during a person's development. So, these changes were balanced by slower rates of growth, lower levels of sex hormones, less aggression, and less sexual activity. 'Races are not equal in the morden age and since history! To prove races are not equal.When a body dies or burnt in a fire.They are scientific ways of determining what race that particular person might be!'Aren't you supposed to argue for Racial Equality?
7.9 is a smaller number than 37,256.38

First off:It is very obvious that 7.9 is a smaller number than 37,256.38 because using basic math taught in elementary schools, 37,256.38 gets 37,248.48 after subtracting 7.9 from it. There is nothing more to it and it is merely impossible for 37,256.38 to be a smaller number than 7.9, whether it's in value, size, area, or length. I'm looking forward to seeing his arguments.
"Nothing I see means anything"

Raisor, I see my haste in creating this argument has lead to confusion, which is my fault. The Reason the topic is in parentheses is because it is the title of a book which reviews Sigmund Freud's application of quantum physics in relation to reality. I meant "means" as value in relation to trying to interpret what reality is. I do agree it was my fault. I originally created this debate to see others perspectives, and hopefully learn from that. clearly though winning seems more important to you, so since this was my fault, I will forfeit the rest of the rounds and essentially hand you the win. I will also recreate the argument with a more sound resolution.
"Nothing I see means anything"

One of the greatest philsopihcal Debates that has been going on since the beginning of philosophy. Appearance vs. Reality. You may debate this topic from one of two perspectives: 1) Religiously 2) Philosophically It will be four rounds. The idea is simple, Our perception of the world is based on our senses. Our senses tell our brain what we see, smell, taste, feel, and hear. All of this is done by, in universal terms, an abstract array of molecules working together in alien fashion. What we see is what this form of molecule compostion interperts, not what is really there. i am in a rush so sorry for not spell checking
Will world peace ever exist

"Let's say if humans did die will their be world peace? Are humans the only thing fighting on this plant. Animals all fight for survival and some like humans will fight each other. "I mentioned humans because we'd be the most likely ones to escape any initial disaster or impending destruction from the sun. Sure, we'd carry puppies into orbit and all that, but as I mentioned previously, if something is living and can die, it will. "And even if all life is wiped from Earth their is still natural violence that occurs. Chaos still occurs with or without life (look at volcanoes). For people to have world peace they must set aside their emotions that make them human and all agree on one thing. "Natural disasters are natural. They are not "fighting;" they simply occur. If something is expected to happen by natural causes, like hurting yourself when you stub your toe, that can't be considered fighting; that is considered physics. Side note: setting aside emotion would cause humans to become robotic and lose individuality. Even with conflict, I'd rather be an individual than a mental image of everyone else.
Will world peace ever exist

Humans won't give up that easily, and will always keep trying to find ways to survive. Let's say if humans did die will their be world peace? Are humans the only thing fighting on this plant. Animals all fight for survival and some like humans will fight each other. And even if all life is wiped from Earth their is still natural violence that occurs. Chaos still occurs with or without life (look at volcanoes). For people to have world peace they must set aside their emotions that make them human and all agree on one thing.
Will world peace ever exist

My burden is to prove that world peace will occur. Peace, as above, can be defined in three definitions. When these conditions are applied to the world (also defined above), world peace will occur. The physical Earth will come to an end at some point. When it does, there will be no humans. Because there will be no humans, it will be impossible for them to fight. In the absence of fighting, there is peace. At that point, there will be peace. At that time, the three conditions of peace will be met: Definition 1) A state in which there is no war or fighting Fulfilled 1) War/fighting is impossible, there cannot be a state of war or fighting Def 2) An agreement to end a war Ful 2) War is impossible, it cannot be ended because it has not begun Def 3) A period of time where there is no war or fighting Ful 3) War/fighting is impossible, there will not be a period of time where there is war or fighting Now, for world peace to occur, there must be a world. The world is made of matter. Matter cannot be created or destroyed; there will always be a world. However, there are two ways humans can survive the end of their habitat being the earth: Physical salvation or Metaphysical salvation. Physical salvation is eventually impossible: the universe is expanding, eventually it will be impossible for humans to reach new star systems or galaxies for safety. Eventually the worlds they are on will be destroyed. Eventually they will be unable to reach safe havens as they will be too far away; an infinite distance. All humans will die and the conditions of peace will be met. Metaphysical salvation requires a supernatural being to intervene and save humankind. However, no supernatural being can be proved. Non-transcendental evidence can never prove a transcendental being. Therefore, there will be world peace as the world will always exist, and humans will eventually all die. World peace will occur by default.
DDO Olympics Final - Talent Competition

I have no idea what happened with that forfeit, but never mind. I'll proceed on the assumption that my opponent doesn't intend to forfeit this whole competition. In that case, here's just my fully recorded version of that last song. This way we'll still have the same number of demonstrations of our talents by the end of the debate. I really like writing songs that I enjoy listening to, and I'd much rather keep listening to this song for a few more days since it's totally stuck in my head right now. http://www.youtube.com... I look forward to seeing my opponent do something awesome.
DDO Olympics Final - Talent Competition

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to access a microphone in 3 days as my usual webcam one broke, so I'm only able to give you an instrumental. That's OK though - for the next round I'll put up both a new original song and a vocally recorded version of this one.Youtube version is very low quality, which you can especially hear in the high notes getting compressed. Basically if you're one of those audiophiles who can't stand bad mastering, listen to this version of the song instead: http://picosong.com...http://www.youtube.com... LIKE BROTHERSI believeThat heartsAre breaking out tonightIn my dreamsFires burnSet the downtrodden alightRound the worldBreaking iceFresh as a daisy flowsAnd we seeHappilyThe more that we give, more it growsAnd it's times like thisThat we can pull togetherShow the world that we careBecause these times willNot last foreverThe least we can do is be there[bridge]Who needs an enemyWhen we have each other?Who needs rivalryWhen we care for one another?If we agreeWe could do so much to help this worldWe'll stand together like sisters and brothers[chorus]We can succeedWorking togetherTo overcome griefAnd make the world betterYou know I believeOur hearts are all brokenFor you, tonightOur hearts are all broken for youIn our worldIn our homeNever need we be aloneBut for theShoulders thatWould not permit crying onIt's our dayTo stand upLet our compassion be heardRound the worldIt's absurdTo deny them what they deserveLeave all barriersAnd break all boundariesTo help your people in needShine your lightTo all the countriesAnd be a savior indeed[bridge repeats][chorus repeats x2]
DDO Olympics Final - Talent Competition

This is the final of the DDO Olympics Talent competition. While I welcome constructive votes from everyone, bear in mind that only official voters in the competition will have their votes counted in the end. Each of us will be demonstrating our unique talents. I will compose and perform original music in each round, whilst Josh will film his nunchuck abilities in the dark. Overall voters should vote for whom they determine to be the most talented. As with my other debate with Josh, the first round will be just for acceptance and for me to say this. Good luck to my opponent and I look forward to a fun competition.
Cartoonetwork sucks

Decent character development isn't required for a child audience. Cartoons are meant to entertain children under the age of thirteenMy response: No not true. Carrtoons on CN arent even made for children under 13. They talk about killing and even sexual things. Example Teent Titans go for all who saw the magician ep. Beast boy was in the bed. And why is beast boy in the bed halfly naked telling raven to come. So tahts for kids?/ Dont believe me look http://www.youtube.com...Also regular show also has some sexual. Not saying is bad its one of the 4that i say is succesful but it still has sexual talk in it. IF u dont believe watch it closely to see since some guy gonna say something foolish.They're meant only to occupy and not to teach.My response: it doesnt teach lessons. It has no moral or anything. Shows on CN have no moral to it thats why they are so horrible. Hence CN takes away all the succesful shows and replaces them with shows that are not even worth watching.My response now is that CN cartoons before were way more succesful than before. SHOWS THAT RUINED CN-UNCLE GRANDPA-STEVEN UNIVERSE-BUILD DESTROY DUDE -JOHNNEY TEST -PROBLEM SOLVERS-MAD-ALIEN FORCE-ALL LIVE ACTION SHOWS COMBINED- CANCELING MANY GOOD TV SHOWS- TEEN TITANZ GOthats to much and there is more
Cartoonetwork sucks

Decent character development isn't required for a child audience. Cartoons are meant to entertain children under the age of thirteen. While yes, most of these shows are beginning to reach toward an older audience, the basic concept remains the same. They're meant only to occupy and not to teach. Look back at cartoons like Looney Toons and Tom and Jerry and you see enough violence that it could be considered PG thirteen. As for the animation, it may not be entirely the network;s fault. The programs used to create the cartoons are different than they were ten years ago. Back then cartoons were purely hand drawn. Nowadays an artists designs a character and creates a series of expressions and body positions and that's the end of their job. The rest is done by software that can manipulate the drawn characters using information available. That's a reason most cartoons nowadays only have four to six positions of characters, and are mostly shown in the three quarter positions. The network can be partly responsible for poor software, but it wasn't the company that created it.
Cartoonetwork sucks

It sucks 1. The shows are failures and many of the shows lack decent character development 2. Cartoon network ruined childhood taking away all the old shows 3. The logo is pretty bad 4. They placed live action shows when it is fr cartoons 5. They took away chowder 6. Most of the shows there now are'nt even for kids 7. UG just killed it there 8. Steven universe is just so boring 9. Only 4 good shows 10. The artwork is crappy with its bad animation
God is a Sound Moral Basis

Ave. I do not wish to have a formal, point-by-point debate. I feel that bores the audience too much, and the most important part of a debate is what the audience takes from it. So, if you ever ask yourself why I don't organize my arguments as much as Pro does, that is why. I will be presenting my case for ethical naturalism. Ethical naturalism is against the idea of objective moral values from a supernatural entity such as god. Since ethical naturalism's conclusions are against the resolution, Pro has to uphold his burden of proof and refute ethical naturalism at the same time. Failure to do both would negate the resolution. My particular form of ethical naturalism is called the 'science of morality'. I will be arguing for the science of morality as presented by Sam Harris (The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values) and Joseph Daleiden (The Science of Morality: The Individual Community and Future Generations). Both of these books are excellent reads for anybody interested in the topic, and I believe that Pro is informed about Dr. Harris's book. The premises of the science of morality are the following: P1: Moral questions are about the well-being of conscious creatures. P2: When faced with two or more solutions, the most moral solution is the one that maximizes the well-being of conscious creatures. P3: Science can objectively tell us what maximizes well-being. C1: Harming well-being is objectively wrong. Maximizing well-being is objectively moral. C2: Science can determine right and wrong Well-being: a good or satisfactory condition of existence Maximizing well-being: improving the well-being of the largest amount of conscious creatures Science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. It is important to make a distinction between A and B. A) The status of moral truth. B) The implications that this moral truth has on our lives. I am only making an argument for A. Questions like 'How does your moral system determine X to be wrong?' fall under the B category, so I will not address such questions beyond dismissing them. I expect Pro to give me an extremely tough time during this debate, and my personal communication with him suggests that he has more experience and qualifications than I do. I have no problem admitting that he'll likely slaughter me when the debate begins. However, I believe that I should not shy away from debates on my ideas, and I will debate everything I believe no matter the strength of my opponent. I do not wish to be the type of DDO member who makes claims and refuses to debate them when they are called out. With that, I leave Round 2 to Pro. If you made it to the end of this, then I thank you for reading. Vale.
Allow prisoners the right to vote

"I did not plagiarize this I never said it was my own work plus I am a beginner so its a simple mistake I am not the only one " [1] pla"gia"rize : copy from (someone) and pass it off as one's own. You didn't give any credit to the author at all. You simply copied and pasted someone else's work. It's common sense. You are taught not to do this is school as well. "I am a beginner so its a simple mistake I am not the only one " So just because other people plagiarize, it gives you the right to do so as well? Anyways... When you get put into prison, you must faces the consequences for committing a crime. Prison isn't all fun and games. Just because "the right to bear arms" is a right, doesn't mean I can bring a gun to prison because I have the right to do so. Prisoners are given basic rights which are needed to survive. [2] All prisoners obtain the basic rights which are needed to survive, and sustain a reasonable way of life (meaning they have the necessities), despite their imprisonment. Most rights are taken away so the prison system can maintain order, discipline, and security. Any of the following rights, given to prisoners, can be taken away for that purpose: - The right to not be punished cruelly or unusually. - The right to due processes. - The right to administrative appeals. - The right to access the parole process (denied to those incarcerated in the Federal System) - The right to practice religion freely. - The right to equal protection (Fourteenth Amendment). - The right to be notified of all charges against them. - The right to receive a written statement explaining evidence used in reaching a disposition. - The right to file a civil suit against another person. - The right to medical treatment (both long and short term). (Mental Patients/Prisoners) - The right to treatment that is both adequate and appropriate. - The right to a hearing upon being relocated to the mental health facility. - The right to personal property such as: cigarettes, stationary, a watch, cosmetics, and snack-food. - The right to visitation. - The right to food that would sustain an average person adequately. - The right to bathe (for sanitation and health reasons). Vote Con. Source: [1] https://www.google.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Allow prisoners the right to vote

C1. The views and needs of prisoners should be represented in a democratic systemThe refusal to grant prisoners the right to vote 'is not demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society'1. Such societies pride themselves on the participation of all in the political process, regardless of wealth, class, gender or sexual orientation. The objective of such systems, to ensure that all views are represented fairly and voters represented equally, does not stop at the gates of a prison. Issues such as prison overcrowding and abuse by warders are not treated seriously as political issues, since those most directly affected cannot vote and the public generally has little interest in prisoners' well-being. Prisoners should also have the opportunity to influence the formation of policy on healthcare, education, the environment and all the other issues that affect the world into which almost all of them will someday be released. Prisoners are not treated as "civically dead" when it benefits the State: they are liable for taxation on any earnings and savings that they have. There should be no taxation without representation.C2. Prisoners are less likely to re-offend if encouraged to participate in the civic process as part of their rehabilitationPrisoners are more likely to ease comfortably and peacefully back into civilian life if, whilst in prison, they retain links with the democratic process. Enfranchisement confers not only self-worth and meaning within a society, but can encourage research and engagement with contemporary issues. To deny this right is to force 'the disinherited (to) sit idly by while others elect his civil leaders and while others choose the fiscal and governmental policies which will govern him and his family'1. Such an outcome conveys to prisoners that not only they committed a crime, but that they committed that crime because they were incapable of acting in a manner fit for society. Mistakes made by otherwise altogether rational, beneficial members of society should not be punished by preventing their say in how that society is run.C3. Prisoners retain their right to basic human rights Prisoners remain human beings. We should respect their human rights and should infringe upon their liberty as little as possible, except where it concerns the protection of the public. Denying prisoners the right to vote does not protect the public in any way and is therefore an unwarranted infringement upon the human rights of prisoners. As the U.S. Congress decreed in 1993, 'the right of citizens to vote is a fundamental right'1. Those rights which are unalienable should not be lost when one is incarcerated.
Churches Ought not be Taxed

I had to put this into Google Translate. You are saying that assuming churches serve the general welfare of the population, and the IRS lists churches as serving the welfare of the population, then they should not be taxed. This is based on assumptions which I will now tackle. Churches claim to offer some benefit towards the welfare of the population, but most churches, specifically the Catholic Church, run like a business. They have outlets in every country, they provide advice, morality and salvation to their customers and even have competition from other religious businesses. These religions often require tithes from their members, which provides income for the church. Religions are business as much as any other corporation. Next up, there are clear benefits to taxing the church. If we were to tax the churches, we would make 71,000,000,000 Dollars annually, and that's only in America. http://taxthechurches.org... http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org... Churches make more than most businesses on the planet, and yet are able to use the claim that they benefit the welfare of the people to remain tax exempt. Saying "if the law says it's right, then it must be right, this is legal, so it too, must be right" doesn't cut it. Anything that claims to "benefit the welfare of the people should then be exempt;" doctors, civil servants, anyone who helps others. This only means that the laws need to be changed. Your move, Duncan.
Churches Ought not be Taxed

Assuming that it's true that Being a Church implies that classified as serving the General Welfare & classified as serving the General Welfare implies that Ought not be Taxed, then it's true that Being a Church implies that Ought not be Taxed. Being a Church implies that classified as serving the General Welfare; Classified as serving the General Welfare implies that Ought not to be Taxed. Necessarily, Being a Church implies that Ought not to be Taxed. IRS lists Churches as serving the General Welfare. Either serving the General Welfare or Ought to be Taxed. If not serving General Welfare implies Ought to be Taxed. If Ought not to be Taxed implies serving the General Welfare. If Ought not to be Taxed implies Being a Church.
Why Abortion should be banned

What about the trauma rape victims go through? Rape victims often get PTSD from their ordeal. Being pregnant and knowing you MUST deliver a baby you had no consent in making puts a lot of stress on the rape victim. It adds to the trauma. Rape is not a good thing, even if a baby comes out of it. Another thing is that women aren't entirely helpless. They take precautions. Some are black belts and others carry pepper spray or a gun. And why should we penalize women for being the victim? Another thing is that banning abortion will not stop it, just like how the Prohibition Act did not stop alcohol. The only thing an abortion ban will stop is safe abortions. Women who do not want a baby will still try it on themselves, without the help of a doctor. And trying abortion without a doctor is extremely risky. This could not just kill the baby, but it's dangerous to the woman as well. It could end up killing them both, or even worse, keeping the baby alive, but horribly deform it.