BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Men are superior to women, but women are more essential than men.

I'm back. I've recovered from how sick your "logic" and "genuine understanding and observation of women" made me. That said, I still don't understand how you would have a better understanding of women than me-or your twisted definition of "logic." I believe, when you said this debate would be "purely based on logic," you meant to say "purely based on stereotypes and generalizations"?I can do that too!Men are insensitive. Men are immature. Men are more violent. Men only care about sex, sports and food. Men are slobs. Men are misogynistic (see my opponent for Exhibit A). See? Two can play this game.Oh, wait, it wasn't JUST gender stereotypes, was it? It's also stereotypes of feminists! Really, what is a "male mentality"?You almost killed me when you talked about how men make "better abusers". Yes, because abusing people is a VERY VALUABLE SKILL TO HAVE. It's not like it's unethical or inhumane or something that the world could very easily do without, right?You also act as if wanting to love and be loved back is a purely feminine phenomenon, and it makes someone "inferior". In fact, you don't show any particular way that your examples actually make women inferior. Being more abusive, in my opinion, makes someone inferior. It seems that only weak people have feelings, correct?And by the way, even if you weren't raised by sexist pigs, you still are one.
Men are superior to women, but women are more essential than men.

I accept the challenge, and I look forward to debating with you.As per the guidelines set by my opponent, here is an outline of my case: Both genders are equal, the superiority of either gender is a man-made concept and can be changed any time. Women can only be considered more "essential" if the purpose of living is reproduction. That said, reproduction could not happen without men, making both genders essential to reproduction. Many people act based on what they have been told is "normal", not what they actually want to do. I am interested to see my opponent's ideas on the topic.
resolved states ougth not posses nuclear weapons

Intro: States ought not posse's nuclear weapons. I'd like to thank my opponent for getting involved with my debate. Here are the definitions that I used to define my resolve. "Ought" is used to indicate duty or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions. An example is "they ought to respect the law". Ought is also used to indicate a desirable or expected state. The example of this is "he ought to be able to take the initiative". "Ought not" (without "to") is used to advise against doing something. "Ought not" is the same as should not. I am defining "Nuclear Weapons" as an explosive device whose destructive potential derives from the release of energy that accompanies the splitting or combining of atomic nuclei. My value is Security My judging criterion is deters conflict Contention 1: The risk of using them. My first contention is that possession of Nuclear weapons can lead to the risk of using these weapons. At this moment, thousands of warheads remain on high alert. Once they are launched, they cannot be recalled. The US and Russia, who have the biggest arsenal, pose the greatest risk. Even greater risks are India and Pakistan, who have a long history of conflict. With their close proximity it makes it more likely for a false alarm to go off and lead to an accident. Space based missile defense interceptors, such as those purposed by the US, can increase the risk of accidental detonation by eliminating pace-based early warning satellites, used by the US and Russia. Contention 2: High cost: My second contention is that the high cost of Nuclear weapons is putting our economy further in debt. Obama is going to be giving 8 billion dollars in loan guarantees to break ground in Georgia on the first two new nuclear reactors in nearly 30 years. The cost for military artillery is a big reason why the US is in debt. The current US debt is 13.3 trillion dollars. The United States spent a minimum of 5.5 trillion dollars on its nuclear weapons programs. When the dismantling of toxic waste is factored in, the money spent is 5.8 trillion dollars. Contention 3: The damage when used: My third contention is that Nuclear weapons cause irreparable damage When used, radiation can cause a lot of damage. In 1945 in Hiroshima, the atomic bomb led to the death of over two hundred thousand people. Nuclear weapons have the potential to kill hundreds of thousands of people. They have enough to destroy the world over and over again. These truly are weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear weapons are Costly, risky, and deadly. Not having nuclear weapons provides security and deters conflict. Because of this, I confirm the resolution Resolved: States Ought Not Posses Nuclear Weapons.
The Bible teaches that The Holy Spirit is a Person

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for the topic. It is quite the intriguing one, and I, for one, will gladly see to it that it is debated with the most serious of thought and care. Now then, my opponent states that The Holy Spirit would qualify as a person, as according to the Bible. His reasoning is as such: The Bible states that the Holy Spirit has many of e characteristics he believes make up what we would qualify as a 'person.' Things such as thought, intelligence, emotion, the ability to speak and the ability to interact with others. However, I would like to put forward that these qualities, along with the other he has mentioned, alone do not form what we would view as a person. The Holy Spirit lacks one very important thing crucial to person-hood: physical presence. Allow me to elaborate. The Holy Spirit, being a spirit, obviously lacks a physical form. It is truly more of an influence than a being. Let us take a sleeping man for example. Although his thoughts maybe in a far away place, not necessarily even connected to this Earth, we still consider the sleeping man to be a person. Why? Because he is still physically there. The man's body has not go anywhere, while everything that makes the man himself is lost to the world of sleep. It is that physical shell, that mortal husk that provides what it means to be a person, as opposed to a deity, or a influence. To say that the Holy Spirit is a person would be to say that every device the Christian God ever used to communicate to mortal man is a person. If we would not consider the burning bush he spoke to Moses to a person, why would we anymore consider the Spirit to be one? The Holy Spirit, as according to the Bible, is certainly an entity, but unlike Jesus, Michael, Gabriel and even God himself, he is never said to have any physical attributes. Even God, The Father, is physically said to have a face, and therefore a physical form. I believe the Holy Spirit qualifies for more as divine influence. Not so much a person as God's will given form, not in the physical sense, but in the emotional sense, such as the way one may think of a character in a story.
The Bible teaches that The Holy Spirit is a Person

"I seem to have taken on this debate with the wrong ideas in mind. I set out to show that the Holy Spirit is not in fact a person," And Con was supposed to show this using the Bible, not just his reasoning power. "while e debate is over the fact that the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit is indeed possessing of the characteristics of a person." The debate is over the fact that the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit IS a person. Obviously, it teaches that he is a person in the same way it teaches that Satan is a person; but showing he has all the attributes necessary for personhood while mentioning nothing about him that would be against personhood. "I will step down from this debate, as I can not discredit the Bible, regardless of how I feel about it in terms of fictionalization." Well, the title of the debate is "THE BIBLE TEACHES that the holy spirit is a person;" so wheather you believe in the Bible or not is irrelevant, wheather it is fictional or not is irrelevant, the relevant point is, DOES THE BIBLE TEACH the holy spirit is a person, or not? Thank you for accepting the debate, and for conceeding that you could not prove that the Bible does not teach the holy spirit is a person. I enjoyed this debate.
Vegan/Animal Rights

I realize Animals are living beings, but in this planet their is a theory called natural selection (a.k.a. survival of the fittest). We as humans have evolved to the point where we domesticate, contain, and eat animals. To go vegan and stop the murder of these animals would not only counter the effects of our evolution, but would also destroy the industries involved in the selling of these foods, which might mess up the economy. Plus, steak and bacon are amazing.
Vegan/Animal Rights

You obviously did not seem to understand my previous argument so I will try to put it in simpler terms. Our nature has humans has made it so we usually don't end up in 1v1 fights against animals higher in the food chain. As I said earlier, our brains help us build tools, which due to our build we can use. These tools allow us to kill animals and make food out of them. "It may have 5000 years ago. Not anymore." -> What proof do you have that eating meat no longer benefits us in any way? Meat is not all that harmful, and it provides us with helpful things like protein. " I believe a few sharks, piranhas, hyenas, bears and lions would like to have a word with us about who's ahead of who in the food chain." -> It's too bad they don't speak our language You must not know what evolution is. What is your point?? -> My point is that because we are not able to beat some animals in one on one fights we developed brains to help us build tools. This in turn helped us be able to beat these animals. All genuine carnivores and omnivores eat an animal's eyes, nose, face, toes, tail, anus, inner organs, blood, brain and fur UNCOOKED. -> We are not full carnivores, and I never said that. We are actually closer to herbivores than carnivores but WE DO EAT MEAT. This means we aren't herbivores. It is fairly simple. You feel bad for taking away something that would kill people?? -> Meat, when prepared in the right way (which we can do because of our traits! Evolution at work.) is not poisonous to humans. Compare this to chocolate. If you eat to much chocolate, you can die. It is good and bad for you at the same time. Yet still, I do not see you arguing about getting rid of all chocolate. Everything can have negative side effects but that does not mean we should ban them. Also, in case you were arguing that the animal itself could kill us, pigs and cows are not violent creatures. Finally, even if you believe that consumption of animals is wrong, cows, pigs, and other animals we eat are domesticated and rely greatly on us to survive. If we stopped using them for food, we would not have a really good reason to continue keeping them in our care and feeding them with our resources. If we let them out into the wild they probably would die, and if we kept them here we would be wasting money keeping them alive, when there is no longer a market for them.
Vegan/Animal Rights

Human's have teeth for a reason, and while they may not be sharp enough to rip open hides, with the brains we gained from evolution we have made instruments (e.t.c. forks and knives) that help us with this. You also mentioned that we use tools to help us kill these animals. This is another factor of evolution. We were given thumbs and big brains for a reason. The survival of the fittest theory says that creatures evolve in certain ways because it benefits them and allows them to produce offspring. If the consumption of meat if one of our evolutionary traits that benefits our race. Humans are neither herbivores or carnivores, they eat both meat and plants which makes them omnivores. It is not against our nature, or unnatural to eat dead animals, because we (and hundreds of other animal species), have been doing so for thousands of years. When I stated that the majority of Americans eat meat, I did not mean to say that this proves Animal Rights are wrong. Instead I meant to say that by taking away the consummation of animals you would be denying millions of people access to a food they enjoy eating. In 2012 the US. Beef Industry was worth 85 billion dollars. If you are not talented at math, let me tell you that 85 billion dollars is a substantial amount of money, and beef is one of our bigger exports. Not only would enforcing strict animal rights be disliked by those who eat meat, but it would also take a major export a way from a country already in a tremendous debt. Also, to correct a few minor errors in your previous argument: Your not. -> You're not That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. -> Without going through some kind of mental list of everything you have ever heard, that statement has no data to back it and therefore should not be used in this debate. Why do you get to give your "food" fancy nicknames and I don't? -> This debate is not about me telling you that you cannot give names to your food. Go ahead and call it whatever you want to. Unless it does not infringe on any trademarks, I believe it is legal. Humans are 100% herbivorous. -> That statement is 100% false as I proved above. Since humans consume meat, and have for a while now, we cannot be called herbivorous. Humans are going that right now. -> Humans are doing that right now If it is possible, in your next argument could you try to bring up some new points instead of just picking fun and making snide comments about mine. Thank you.
Vegan/Animal Rights

Bacon and steak are not really bacon and steak without the meat that goes into them. Also, in many countries, including America, the majority of the population eat meat. While some might argue that facon tastes better than bacon, it can be agreed that it does not taste the same. Plus, getting rid of the meat industry entirely would be different than transitioning from milk to soy (more milk is sold than soy anyways). With no more meat being sold, animals like pigs would no longer be useful, and many of them might be slaughtered. To cause everyone to go vegan might in a way support the cause you are fighting against. Humans aren't the only ones who kill living beings, many animals like tigers, lions, and sharks eat living beings to survive. We do not force them to eat plants though! Why are humans supposed to defy the laws of nature and stop eating something that has been part of our diet since the beginning of the human race!
Vegan/Animal Rights

"To go vegan and stop the murder of these animals would not only counter the effects of our evolution" Are you saying it is wrong to stop the murder of beings? Counter the effects?? You must not know the concept of evolution. Of a member of a spices has a good gene (Like a big brain) it will carry that gene to it's offspring no matter what. "but would also destroy the industries involved in the selling of these foods, which might mess up the economy." Not true. Companies can change ingredients. For example Silk (The soy milk company) used to be a diary farm. And even if businesses suffer it's ok. When slavery was abolished the same thing happened. "Plus, steak and bacon are amazing." I agree! But we should eat those thing from vegan based ingredients so we don't harm ourselves, non-human animals, or make people over-seas become even more impoverished. sources: Records of Buckinghamshire, Volume 3, BPC Letterpress, 1870, p. 68. Jump up ^ Berry, Rynn. "A History of the Raw-Food Movement in the United States," in Brenda Davis and Vesanto Melina, Becoming Raw: The Essential Guide to Raw Vegan Diets, Book Publishing Company, 2010, p. 9ff. ^ Jump up to: a b Hart, James D. "Alcott, Amos Bronson," in The Oxford Companion to American Literature, Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 14. Also see Francis, Richard. Fruitlands: The Alcott Family and their Search for Utopia, Yale University Press, 2010. Jump up ^ "Vegan Diets Become More Popular, More Mainstream", Associated Press/CBS News, 5 January 2011: "Ethical vegans have a moral aversion to harming animals for human consumption ... though the term often is used to describe people who follow the diet, not the larger philosophy." Francione, Gary and Garner, Robert. The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition Or Regulation? Columbia University Press, 2010 (hereafter Francione and Garner 2010), p. 62: "Although veganism may represent a matter of diet or lifestyle for some, ethical veganism is a profound moral and political commitment to abolition on the individual level and extends not only to matters of food but also to the wearing or using of animal products. Ethical veganism is the personal rejection of the commodity status of nonhuman animals ..." "Veganism", Vegetarian Times, January 1989: "Webster's dictionary provides a most dry and limiting definition of the word 'vegan': 'one that consumes no animal food or dairy products.' This description explains dietary veganism, but so-called ethical vegans " and they are the majority " carry the philosophy further." ^ Jump up to: a b Cole, Matthew. "Veganism," in Margaret Puskar-Pasewicz. Cultural Encyclopedia of Vegetarianism. ABC-Clio, 2010, p. 241.
Education in America is too easy compared to the eastern side of the world

Dude all you're doing is giving me definitions. What kinda argument is that? Above that, you're a white piece of trash, yo cracker. I'm actually chinese so I know what I'm talking about. Asian countries has way better education system than American. Ask any asian. Furthermore, American education system is bs. The fact that you, a white mother only gives definitions that's "supposed" to be an argument proves that. You don't even know so stop the bs.
Education in America is too easy compared to the eastern side of the world

So my opponent says this, "you did not show any evidence that education in America was not easier. As to the eastern side of the world, I am referring to the asian countries. Asian countries are many levels above American education." Hear is my evidence to show that education in America is just as easy as "Asian countries" [imo thats pretty stereotyped]. His only analysis on the subject was that "Asian countries are many levels above American education", I agree to this statement but he mentions nothing about education here. He simply implies that Asians are smarter than Americans. He then provides 4 sources to which he does not even refer to, so those sources cannot be considered. One of my definitions was Education as being the ability to learn. Once again, silence is consent, which means my opponent agrees with this definition. Easy was also accepted as easier. America as United States was conceded. Eastern side of the world, I agree to this definition, as being Asian Countries. So lets re-phrase the resolution (with the newly accepted word) to make it clearer to understand. == The ability to learn in the United States is easier compared to the Asian countries. == To this I strongly disagree. Asians may be smarter than the average American, but every single person has the same ability to learn. Most of the time they have to choice to learn, wether by paying attention or doing their work. I stand in firm Negation of the Resolution.
Education in America is too easy compared to the eastern side of the world

Because my opponent is the instigator and holds to Pro position he has the burden of proof. He must present a case and tell us why he believes the resolution to be true. I would like for my opponent to either agree or disagree with each of my definitions and tell me why. === Definitions === Eastern Side of the World: Everything east of America. America: The United States. Education: The ability to learn. Easy: Easier. ====== I will now allow my opponent to tell me why he supports the resolution and wether or not he agrees with my definitions.
Tournament III: On balance, living in a society of anarchy is better than living under a dictator

I accept the challenge. A special thanks to Johnicle for organizing this tournament and to the judges. A reminder that only judges may vote on these tournaments, so please refrain from voting unless your a judge. I accept the definitions. Hopefully we will not run into a semantic debate. If the ambiguous definitions are a problem, I believe we should use the comment sections to sort it out. Good luck to my opponent. I luck forward to it.
Tournament III: On balance, living in a society of anarchy is better than living under a dictator

Rebuttals *Dictatorships are not responsible for horrendous acts* Pro claims that dictators have caused the worst acts in human history. He cites many examples of dictatorship’s atrocities. However, regardless of governmental system, horrid crimes against humanities have always existed throughout history. Democracies, like dictatorships, can also commit horrendous acts. The United States allowed slavery until 1865 and almost completely wiped out the Native American population. Democratic European nations exploited the resources of Africa and other areas. The overthrow of a monarchy and establishment of a republic caused the Rwandan Genocide, killing a million [1]. Anti-Semitism and the doctrine that some races were superior to other races was the main cause of the holocaust, not because Nazi Germany was under a dictatorship. Not all dictatorships are responsible for horrendous acts either. Josip Tito[2] and Anwar El Sadat[3] were dictatorships but were not responsible for horrendous acts. Anwar El Sadat was even awarded a peace prize. There is no reason to believe why horrendous acts are more likely to occur in dictatorships then in anarchy. If, an anarchic society is racist against blacks, there’s no reason to believe why blacks would not die in a genocide caused by the masses. Contentions *Anarchy is intrinsically evil* In anarchy, there is a strong incentive to commit selfish acts that harm others. One can kill, rape, or steal without any consequence. While governed, one would be punished for these actions, in anarchy you will not. There would be no incentive to be productive since your wealth can easily be stolen. There is no incentive to be kind, since only selfish actions are awarded in anarchy. In anarchy, if businesses do exist, then market failures would be rampant. Businesses would literally kill the competition in order to stay noncompetitive. Polluting the environment with toxic chemicals would be the norm. The poor would not be able to afford an education. An anarchist society would suffer the tragedy of the commons. Historic evidence has shown that anarchy is evil. During police strikes, and Katrina, loitering was at an all time high. The dangers of anarchy are so prevalent, that police officers are virtually the only form of labor that cannot strike. During Somalia from 1991-2006, it was a horrendous time. During this time, Somalia had the highest mortality rate in the world. Adult literacy ratings declined to only 17%. It had no access to drinking water and violence was at an all time high.