BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion = Hedonism

I wasn't saying that you were sexist for saying a woman can't have an abortion, I was saying you were sexist for this "her desire to have sex and frolic around and enjoy her life, does this hedonist self centered pregnant woman, does she have the right to kill her future generations b/c having babies hurts and changing daipers bloody inconvenient when you just lust after guys like a dog in heat." let me break down WHY I said this was sexist 1. "her desire to have sex and frolic around and enjoy her life, does this hedonist self centered..." you said she was self-centered, however, every human does this, I don't know if you know this, but people have sex, and we have it for pleasure. 2. "b/c having babies hurts and changing daipers bloody inconvenient..." Have you ever been kicked in the balls? Imagine that, but x10, that is how much it hurts, and the dIApers have nothing to do with it, it is because they can't(or don't want to) raise a child 3. "lusts after men like a dog in heat" do you even listen to yourself? think before you speak(yeah I know, freedom of speech and all, but still, think). all in all, pretty sexist Anyways, could you get on with the topic? we have 1 round left
Abortion = Hedonism

Sexest person too??? You open a debate with an Ad hominem none sense?! Dude, a couple: it takes 2 people to make a baby - unless your god, father of jesus son of Zeus - a woman just does not have a V-8 moment "oh gee I'm pregnant"! The vast majority - statistically - of abortions occur from single unmarried women. Getting laid its just as important for hedonist women as to hedonist men. This in no way changes the central issue of this debate: does the current living generation have greater Constitutional rights than does the future as yet unborn generations? The question its absurd framed in this context.
Mike Pence Won the VP Debate

I am Pro, and will be arguing that Governor Mike Pence of Indiana won the Vice Presidential debate last night against Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia. You are Con, and will argue for the Victory of Kaine. Round 1: Acceptance. Round 2: Opening Arguments Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: 2nd Arguments Round 5: Closing arguments. Be polite, use proper grammar, and debate with dignity.
Should global warming or global poverty be a priority

The fact that you forfeited means that you have now become aware of the fact that global poverty is a much greater threat to human survival than global warming. You have attempted to make succinct responses and points, but not only have they made close to no sense, they have been contradictory. Stopping global poverty is a current issue, as opposed to the future and distant concern global warming is. Therefore, it has to be prioritized, for the good of the people of this world. Thanks for debating with me
Should global warming or global poverty be a priority

This reply does not make any sense. What you are saying is that global warming can be solved with the implementation of "solar roads" You even refuted your point, saying it would cost a lot of money? If you are for the combating of global poverty, then why would you go against your own stance momentarily. To continue my point, I would like to reiterate that stopping poverty must be stressed over stopping global warming because of the fact that it is a current problem, as opposed to the long-term problem that global warming is. Right now much more people are dying from destitution, not rising oceans, a number reaching the hundred of millions. Children are unable to survive to adulthood because of their extremely poor conditions. These are problems that must be solved as soon as possible, while the problem of global warming can wait, and is already being dealt with sufficiently.
Should global warming or global poverty be a priority

Stopping global warming might seem as if it should be prioritized, and it is certainly an important issue, but stopping global poverty should without a shadow of a doubt be prioritzed. Poverty is an issue that most of the world has to deal with, or has dealt with before, in comparison with the negligible and marginal impact global warming has had on humanity. The world's climate is warming up - yes - but we have already taken measures to stop its proliferation. Governments around the world have instituted laws banning the use of fossil fuels significantly, such as liberal states like Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. And with the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement implemented, countries now have even greater reason and initiative to stop using coal, gas, and oil. The fossil fuel industry is on the verge of collapse, meaning new technologies will grow in relevance, stopping the global temperature from rising eventually. Meanwhile, people are dying of starvation, disease and warfare, direct consequences of poverty. We must look both into the future and into the present, but the present should of course be prioritized. People are dying from poverty, not global warming (a negligible number), and therefore to save the lives of men, women, and children at the moment, dying from starvation, disease, and bloody conflicts, we must prioritize the combatting of global poverty.
lgbt

Now this seems like an incredible challenge...and I can't shy away from these type of "one-sided debates" I Accept: and as Con I challenge the (topic) "Same sex should be legalized in all countries." I will use my R1 as Acceptance and also a request to Pro for clarity. Do you mean "same sex marriage"? (Important Note) I assure you - I am going to hit you from angles you won't expect. I am far from a bigot and my sister is openly gay. I hope you are ready because I am ready to 'Debate' !!!!
People who say they're beautiful are selfish

I completely agree with the contents of the opponent's first argument. "Ofcouse [sic] you should not say you're beautiful to be mean, but to show people that you're proud of it is not wrong. "Through this statement, the opponent concedes that, under some circumstances, it is not selfish for someone to say that he or she is beautiful. This contradicts her stance, which is that "people who say they're beautiful are selfish. "Thank you.
Giving Welfare to people that don't work

We should give welfare to people that don't work and there are many reasons to support my claim. You claim that people would stop working and live off welfare and that is simply not true. One form of welfare is Economic Development, this form of welfare gives scholarships and grants for higher education to the unemployed people who live of welfare so they can get educated and get a job and in return when these people find good jobs these people help boost the economy with taxes. In conclusion, giving welfare to the unemployed boosts the economy and the living conditions of the people on welfare.
THIS HOUSE WOULD LEGALLY RECOGNIZE HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGES

"marriage is a sacred sacrament that needs to be respected." Yes, I agree. I believe that gay men and women can respect marriage just as much as heterosexuals. You cannot/have not proven otherwise. "if we would allow this homosexuals to marry, we would actually deprive the culture of the society" Wouldn't expanding the parameters of marriage actually encourage new cultural frontiers in society? I mean I think I understand what you're trying to get at (though I vehemently disagree); however, so far in this debate you have not provided anywhere near adequate factual evidence nor relative statements to prove this or any of your claims to be true.
THIS HOUSE WOULD LEGALLY RECOGNIZE HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGES

okay. basically homosexuals are those we call as "gays, lesbians, etc" in the other hand, marriage is a sacred sacrament that needs to be respected. if we would allow this homosexuals to marry, we would actually deprive the culture of the society with which, they are used to men-women marriages. with the given explanations. i believe that it's best set in the Philippines since homosexual marriages here are not yet allowed
Resolved: That "b*tches ain't sh*t but hoes and tricks"

Since DDO is not kind to profanities, I have simplified the corresponding terms in the proposition to their first letters. So clearly B would be b****, T is trick, and H is ho (can I say that one?) I have been wrestling with this resolution for a few days now. I can immediately conclude that Dre’s proposition reflects a subjective judgment that has essentially formed into a component of Dre’s worldwide. Arguably, B containing properties T and H could be said to be part of Dre’s objective reality. Sociologically, this idea has credit. In their 1966 book The Social Construction of Reality authors Berger and Luckmann describe how for socialized individuals objective reality is molded by social facts and institutions: “By ‘successful socialization’ we mean the establishment of a high degree of symmetry between objective and subjective reality” [1]. Additionally, Dre’s conception of B is certainly a social fact given his roots from the poorer, inner cities of Los Angeles and Compton. Philosophical mumbo-jumbo aside, Dre operates directly under this premise in his environment and this subjective judgment has been effectually molded into his worldview. Any attempt to frame this debate in traditional universal terms will certainly fall flat. Language is a tool we use to convey our sense of reality. Dre has his conception of B, and Con has his. So, are we at a deadlock? Perhaps, but regardless of one’s views on this subject it is true that Dre stated a factually claim that objectively purveys his notion of reality. It is useless for Con to attempt to debunk Dre’s proposition given that his own interpretation is simply his own attempt at defining reality – namely through his own “lense” (genes, upbringing, luck, etc.) [1] The Social Construction of Reality, p. 129.
Resolved: That "b*tches ain't sh*t but hoes and tricks"

I will be arguing the affirmative on Dr. Dre's famous proposition "b*tches ain't sh*t but hoes and tricks" as heard in his 1992 album "The Chronic" [1]. The proposition will henceforth be referred to as "Dre's Law." First round is only for acceptance and/or definitional issues, and I accept the burden of proof on this contentious matter.-Definitions-B1tch: b1tch   [bich] Show IPA–noun1.a female dog.2.a female of canines generally.3.Slang .a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person, especially a woman.b lewd woman. [2]For the rest of the definitions I had to consult an alternative source (Urbandictionary.com) to account for the unorthodox phrasing present in Dre's Law.Hoe: 1. A skank 2. A woman that is too loose in the booty. 3. Woman or man that f*** anything with two legs. 4. A promiscuous person. [3]The fourth definition most likely encapsulates the concept the best.Trick: Term directed more toward females most commonly used for women who play with your head in the sense of acting like they want you one day and hardly noticing you the next [4]In plain English the proposition loosely states "A malicious, unpleasant woman is nothing but a promiscuous individual and/or "teases." [1]http://www.cduniverse.com...[2]http://dictionary.reference.com...;[3]http://www.urbandictionary.com...;[4]http://www.urbandictionary.com...;
The cloning of human beings should be developed and practiced

You are contradicting your own argument. Yes we use all of these technologies but we SHOULDN'T. Your point was whether we should, not whether we have the ability to. In conclusion, I think that even if we do have the technology to, it would never be a smart move to globally start cloning, as society would mostly be against it. Thank you for this debate, I really enjoyed it :) You really got me riled up at parts and it was fun (and sometimes difficult) to counteract you! I hope we can debate again some time.
The cloning of human beings should be developed and practiced

abdab, in response to round #4, humans have a lot of technology that we shouldn't be using, and yet we have used these technologies and still do. We had nuclear bombs in WW2 ,which we shouldn't have used, but we still did, we have guns to kill people, which we shouldn't use, but we still do. If humanity thinks it's perfectly acceptable to destroy life using technology, then why shouldn't we think that it's perfectly acceptable to create life using technology. In conclusion I believe that clones would be more efficient and safer than humans, only governments should be allowed to clone, and that cloning could be vital in humanities future.
The cloning of human beings should be developed and practiced

As I have already stated in Round #3, I believe that only governments and scientific institutions should be able to clone in order to prevent the "designer babies" problem. You may think that the government keeping cloning technology is wrong and unethical, but come on, the government has already lied about so many science and war experiments that it wouldn't surprise me if they already have the technology to clone, and please don't regard me as a crazy conspiracy theorist as this is a possible scenario, one that I do not think is very likely. As I have already stated in Round #3, I believe that only governments and scientific institutions should be able to clone in order to prevent the "designer babies" problem. You may think that the government keeping cloning technology is wrong and unethical, but come on, the government has already lied about so many science and war experiments that it wouldn't surprise me if they already have the technology to clone, and please don't regard me as a crazy conspiracy theorist as this is a possible scenario, one that I do not think is very likely.
The cloning of human beings should be developed and practiced

I will soon hope to show why cloning humans is a good idea both in theory and in practice. I believe that the cloning of humans would impact society in a good way because: 1) Clones would be able to learn faster and store more information than humans. Since clones would be genetically designed scientists could change their interests and intelligence level, this would mean that they could focus more on learning about science and social problems an therefore they would find more creative ways to combat many problems that the world faces today. 2) Clones could fight wars instead of humans. First, Let me say that I do support war of any kind as I believe it cause unnecessary deaths, but if clones were fighting wars instead of humans the clone would be more efficient and less susceptible to make a major mistake. The clones could be genetically programmed to have the ability to stay awake and alert for long periods of time. 3) If clones worked in hospitals they could deal with patients that have transmittable diseases since their genetics would be programmed so their immune system could fight off any disease, this would also lead to the cure for diseases such as cancer and AIDS because scientist could see what the the clones bodies do to fight off these diseases. Also, in response to you concerns designer babies wouldn't be a problem as only governments and scientific institutions would be able to clone, not the general population. And as for your concern for religion, people have the freedom to choose their own beliefs, but just because their religion says something is wrong doesn't mean the rest of the world shouldn't be able to do it. For example Christianity, Judaism, and Islamic all believe in fasting, but that doesn't mean everybody in the world has to fast because it would be offensive to those 3 religions if they didn't.
The cloning of human beings should be developed and practiced

The cloning of humans would affect society in a number of ways. Firstly, it will be the designer babies debate all over again. People will want to choose what clones will look like. Assuming we have the ability to clone, we will eventually have the ability to refine clones and rid them of imperfections. This isn't morally right, people are made the way they are made. There is also religion playing a large part in this. Those with a religion will say only God (or whoever else they think is in charge) has the power to give life and take life away. It is not our responsibility to create life. Not only this but what happens during the testing period? Is it right for us to let people die in the name of a scientific experiment? I think not. I hope you don't forfeit round 3.
The cloning of human beings should be developed and practiced

Debate Rules & Regulations 1)You may include as many sources as you want, or no sources if you wish. 2)All source citation types and sources will be accepted. 3)The winner will be decided by an "Open Voting" style taking place over the course of a month after the debate is completed. 4)Failure to post an argument in 48 hours will not result in automatic disqualification although voters are encouraged to vote for a debater who does in fact post an valid argument for each and every round. I personally believe that the cloning of human beings offers more benefits than it does problems to society, therefore cloning should be practiced with my respective limitations. The order and purpose of the five debate rounds are as following: 1) Challenge & Acceptance 2) How the cloning of humans would affect society. 3) Examples of scenarios that would come with the cloning of humans. 4) Who, if anyone should be allowed to clone.
I'd make a better president than you.

Nobody, not even Jordan would vote for you. You'd probably give everyone ebola. Whereas I would use fancy words fabricated into all my speeches to give hope to america that they're dreams are achieveable even though all the other presidents ruined it. I would make it so that there's no government except me, and that people are always happy. If they're not smiling.... Well you can bet yourself that I will make them smile. Somehow. I have my ways. Everyone will love me.
Electoral College

In the second round, both sides will give their main argument. This should be at least 3 paragraphs. In the third round, both sides will rebut what the other side said in the third round. There are no limits on how long or short your argument can be for this round. Swearing is not allowed. Best of luck to my opponent. I stand against the Electoral College because it is an outdated and flawed system. It's a relic from a time where it was needed. Now it's time for it to go.
The Bible does not condemn homosexuality

First of all we should define "condemn". According to a quick Google search. 1. express complete disapproval of, typically in public; censure. 2. sentence (someone) to a particular punishment, especially death. All verses which I will be using are coming from the King James Version of the Bible. The Bible states in Leviticus that homosexuality is an abomination and the penalty is death, as is the case with all sin. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." -- Leviticus 18:22 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." -- Leviticus 20:13 I could very well stop here and have proven my point that the Bible DOES condemn homosexuality. But here are still some other supporting verses out of the Bible to show further proof. The book of Romans states that it is vile, unnatural and unseemly. "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet." -- Romans 1:26-27 In 1 Timothy it is not lawful. "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers. For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for men-stealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;" -- 1 Timothy 1:9-10 Paul states in his first letter to the church of Corinth that they do not inherit the Kingdom of God, which means it is sinful. "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." -- 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 In the book of Matthew, Jesus reaffirms that marriage was intended to be between a man and a woman. "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?" -- Matthew 19:4-5 Having said all of this, does God still love homosexuals? The answer is a resounding YES. It is a sin just like any other sin. I myself am guilty of lying, stealing, drunkenness, lust, coveting, and others. I may not be guilty of homosexuality, but I am a sinner just the same as the homosexual and we are both condemned to death. But God loved us so much that He sent His only son to die for us and to pay for those sins if we would only confess that we have sinned and accept the free gift of forgiveness that He offers.
Mormonism teaches a different Christ than the one from the Bible.

Thank you for accepting. I must be honest; I wasn"t very clear with my arguments. I will try to clear that out now. As you may know the bible is all about Jesus, and if you interpret the bible in a completely different way, then the Jesus is going to be different. For example, Jesus being a creation of God. Or the fact that God was a man before He was God" I wasn"t using those scriptures for the purpose of promoting the Trinity. In Mormonism God was not eternal and had a beginning. Joseph Smith wrote: "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! " I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see" . He was once a man like us; yea that God himself, the Father dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did" ." [1] "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be." This what I am referring to. The fact that Mormons teach that we will become Gods. Contradicts Isiah 43:10 "Ye"are"my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I"am"he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." So, those verses were used to show that the Mormon doctrine of God is false when compared to the Bible. According to the Bible, man cannot become God, there are no other gods and God was not a man. Revelation 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." Furthermore, the doctrine of trinity states that God is one being in three persons. Jesus is the one God; the Father is the one God and the Holy Spirit is the one God. But, the Father isn"t Jesus nor is He the Holy Spirit, vice versa. But that"s not my point. What I would like you to answer is if you agree that the Mormon doctrine of "godhood" is not compatible with the Bible"s doctrine of God. If you acknowledge that there are contradictions, then who are you going to stick with. Next round I will move onto another subject. I will leave you with one verse. 1Timothy 1:17 "Now to the eternal king, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honour and glory forever and ever! Amen." [1] Smith, 321.