BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Genesis 10/11 has more explanatory power than any other ancient document

To proceed, a few things need to be defined and clarified. The book of Genesis is thought to be written between 10th and 5th century BC, but there still needs to be a very specific time interval for which we'll consider documents "ancient", because that will determine the possible documents we can discuss in this debate. Verses 10/11 in Genesis explain: - The common ancestry of all people - Why human kind has more than one language - How humans were spread over the world To prove my opponent incorrect, I would have to find a document from a time interval my opponent and I agree is "ancient" that explains more content than this or explains this in more detail. In the next round we should agree on how old a document has to be, to be considered ancient. https://biologos.org...
Genesis 10/11 has more explanatory power than any other ancient document

Before I proceed with explaining my position, I have to clear up what would otherwise, inevitably, develop into a misunderstanding between me and a potential opponent: This is not about the historical accuracy of Genesis, or whether the things that are written there really are true, that is not the point of this debate at all - it's only about the explanatory power of whatever is written in Genesis, vs the explanatory power of any other ancient text, whether fiction or not.Now, to elaborate on my position, I believe that the information you find in Genesis can be used to explain the origin of most of the nations, people groups and such in the Middle East, surrounding regions, and even the world - and I claim, that there is no other ancient document, that can do the same. There is no document that can have the same level of explanatory power. There is no document that when you read it, you can make sense of the world in the same way.Now, there is a chance that my opponent still has not understood what I meant by "this is not about the historical accuracy of Genesis", and proceed with the objection "but Genesis could have been written after the fact, and therefore have accurate explanations of why things are the way they are today." This of course, completely misses the point. All of the ancient civilizations could have faked documents, according to that logic, and yet, no such documents exist other than Genesis. I hope I have made myself clear enough, and if I have not, post your concerns in the comment section and I will provide further clarification.
Homosexuality is immoral

I'm sure the judges will note that the entire argument was just me talking to myself, doing all the work, stating all the cases, and the only one who even TRIED to make this a conversation. I would've had a better time talking to a pull string doll. Which could atleast say more things then "you're a meanie". Honestly, if people are interested in more detailed reasons why homosexuality is wrong, I'd be glad to show them. http://www.youtube.com... Here is just one guy who gets it. Hear him out, or not. I'm not going to call you names if you don't want too. But then don't go around calling me them. http://paralegalnm.wordpress.com... Here is another link. Again, I cite sources, offer you some reading matirial. That's what I was expecting when I accepted this debate. To read different sources and hope to hear a reasonable side. Not just get called a troll and an idiot and "lololol u mad"? So if you want to vote for that, you go right ahead. I don't need approval. I'm going to make sure gays get treated like sh1t within my lifetime. It's the right thing to do. I've given you all the proof why it's the right thing to you. If you refuse to listen to it, well then f*ck you.
Homosexuality is immoral

Well, why not? You were so certain of yourself that I was a closeted homosexual. Typical liberal hypocrisy. So you can pull out of your @ss an inflammatory comment, but when I do it, it's infantile? You really believe that? Do you really believe you're that special? Well get ready boy... cause you're about to hear something that's going to shake your world. You're not special, infact... your mother probably thought about aborting you given that she was most likely liberal too. You were this close to being in a trash bin, and yet you think you're special enough to be exempt from your own rules of discourse. Well I'm here to tell you that you aren't. And your little friends can't save you either. You can't gang up on me with your shill bull dyke friends, you're all alone. It's prom night all over again for you, isn't it??? I'm a bit peeved that I spent nearly half an hour on a post at the forum over profanities because the forum's filter is so heavily flawed. That's a whole other debate though why it's stupid and ridiculous to have words that can't be used, then why have words in the first place? Why don't we all just talk via grunts and snarls? But I digress from my point... my point is, homosexuality is wrong. So while you keep saying about how immature and insulting I am, you've yet to provide any evidence to the contrary. Even when you (again, wrongfully) claimed I heald the burden of proof. Well I heald your burden, then threw it right on your thin, aids ridden @ss. Because I gave you links to sociopath symptoms, which homosexuals possess. I gave you links to how in the seventies it was a mental illness, and ever since that's changed, sex and domestic crimes have gone up. I also gave you a link to the fifteen ammendment, which states there is no constitutional right to sexuality, or the protection of being discriminated against based on your sexuality, and why that was designed purposely. But you've chosen to ignore all those things. So I'm going to keep talking to myself, we're playing by my rules. Untill you decide to participate instead of just standing there like an idiot, I've won this argument. Because I'm the only one contributing. Show me some damn proof that homosexuality isn't wrong. Show me some statistical evidence that gays are no more likely to be promiscues then straights, or how statistically heterosexuals cheat or abuse their spouses more. Remember that to a homosexual, a "longterm relationship" is like two weeks. So you have to take that into consideration. But I highly doubt you're going to go through all that effort because you never intended this to be a debate. You intended this to be a spectacle to show you bullying The Jim Profit. As if I was just going to let you. I'm not one of your democrat youth colleagues Instigator. Which I must say is a very appropiate name for you. So untill you start posting links, and you start going through the trouble of making an argument, and stop mudslinging me for five seconds. I'm going to ask that you conceede and stop embarrassing yourself. I don't find it fun arguing with a wall that occassionaly hurls a false accusation.
Homosexuality is immoral

I apologize on my opponent's behalf for any offense his last round may have caused anyone. Perhaps challenging him to this debate wasn't such a good idea after all. In an infantile rage brought on by his inability to make coherent argument, Pro spent most of his rebuttal tossing about petty insults. Although it pains me to disappoint him, I must admit to my opponent that I am not, in fact gay. Extend my arguments. The resolution is negated.
Homosexuality is immoral

JimProfit has been trolling the forums lately with his anti-gay spiel. Whenever called out on it, he has been unable to coherently explain *why* he thinks homosexuality is immoral. This has led many to speculate that his feelings are owing to personal issues with denial and self-loathing. Here I've provided him with a platform to explain his views to the DDO community and to dispel such rumors. Because Pro has an onerous burden of proof to uphold, I'll give him a head start to lay out his case in the first round. I'll hold my arguments until Round 2. Good luck, you'll need it. - J.Kenyon
Gay marriage should be illegal

Now this dude has gone from ignorant to willful obtuseness. Again, morals concerns what should be done. Thus, what the state should do is a moral question. And yes, God says that not only is sodomy immoral, but that the state should execute those who engage in it. And no, the government does not exist to benefit people and certainly not account to this fool's calculus. And I never argued that executing sodomites is harmful, for justice is always good. Rather, I showed why this fool's solution to minimize sodomite suffering by allowing them to '"marry" is inferior to eliminating their suffering by execution. Finally, I showed that the economic benefit from executing sodomites is orders of magnitude higher than letting them marry. This fool responds by making up some nonsense about where the dollars come from, but that is not relevant to the question of economic benefit. Given that not only is he wrong in an absolute sense, his owe arguments show that executing sodomites is better than marrying them. He loses.
Gay marriage should be illegal

Pro does nothing to discuss the role of the state. What the government "should" do isn't a moral question unless proven so. Regardless, Pro doesn't do anything to prove that homosexuality is immoral. The government exists to benefit its people, because if it doesn't do what is net beneficial for its people, it lacks any legitimacy and unnecessarily curtails liberties. Pro argues that executing homosexuals eliminates the problem of psychological distress, but completely drops the argument that executing them is one such harm in itself -- so the plan itself is its biggest harm. Pro also drops that executioners suffer from psychological distress. Finally, the economic argument is nonsense, and here's why. The money spent by the people on a wedding is often used for their own benefit - they enjoy the wedding, and they *own* the money, so they have the right to spend it the way they want. In contrast, the government doesn't own its money -- it is owned by the people, of the people and for the people. The role of the state is to benefit its people, and so that's the only purpose for which the money should be used. And there are other ways to get employment, et cetera without the actually *significant* harm of executing people.
Gay marriage should be illegal

As I said, this dude is utterly lack of a moral education. Indeed, he does not even know what morality is in questioning that morality concerns itself with standard of how people should act. And again, morality has nothing to do with mental states. ROFL. And yes, government exists to enforce moral codes. That is all government does. Yes, you said :married" sodomites would suffer less psychological harm than "unmarried" sodomites, which is to say all sodomites are psychologically messed up. This is, of course, very true. Executing them eliminates this problem. Finally, economic spending does concern itself with subjective notions of positive and negative. Rather, it understands tht every dollar spend in an economy is an economic boost to the economy. Indeed, his analsysis is silly. For while a wedding may benefit those who perform it, it is a negative to those who pay for it. The same is true for executing sodomites. While the state may suffer lose, those who are paid because of the execution are benefitted. In terms of economic benefits, marrying sodomites cannot hold a candle to executing them. Go execution.
Gay marriage should be illegal

First, Pro says "should" is the language of morality, but fails to substantiate this claim. I didn't claim it was the language of "economics" either. Should implies "correctness" or "obligation," which is usually on the basis of net positive mental states generated and net negative mental states. Furthermore, this is a discussion of government policy, so it is Pro's burden to show that the role of the state is upholding "morality." Second, I didn't say homosexuals are suffering from some "mental illness" and that's a gross misrepresentation. I'm saying people - in *general* - face psychological distress if they face severe social stigmatization, and doing that to same-sex couples qualifies as a harm. Third, Pro drops that killing innocents qualifies as a "harm." Execution is a weird plan that results in net harm; in fact, it even causes psychological damage to the executioner [http://www.njadp.org...]. Pro's sole justification for execution is that "they are guilty of the moral crime of sodomy." Pro doesn't warrant this at all, because (a) marriage doesn't imply sex, and (b) Pro fails to prove that this is a "moral crime." Pro also fails to prove that God supports this execution. Finally, turn Pro's economic argument. The $20k spent on a wedding is *positive* because it boosts businesses, increases consumption and increases revenue. The costs spent on capital punishment is a negative cost, since it is a loss of *government* revenue.
Gay marriage should be illegal

It is always fun to watch those indoctrinated by the government school system, which is to say those who no moral education whatsoever, try to argue on moral grounds. First of all, ignorant one, "should" is the language of morality, not economics. Second, while there is a school of moral thought that thinks morality is economics, no one seriously embraces it anymore for it assumes omniscience when no man possesses such. Third, sodomites are not innocent, but are guilty of the moral crime of sodomy. Fifthly, they should be executed because God, who is omniscient, says so. Turning now to your silly claims, I am glad to see you admit sodomites have psychological problems, even if they are "married". Your idea may (or may not minimize) those problems, but executing sodomites eliminates that problem entirely. As true as it is that dead men tell no tales, it is truer that dead mean suffer no problems. Second, if you wish to argue based on the economic benefit, I assure you executing sodomites has a much greater economic benefit than holding weddings for them. Just think of all the people necessary to execute a sodomite, from lawyers; to judges; to clerks; to prison guards, staff, wardens; to those who build the death chambers; to those who make the stones to use in the actual execution, to those who make and sell the poster board and crayons for those who desire justice to protest, the economic impact is huge. The average wedding is a mere $20k. The average execution is over a million dollars. To eliminate psychological harm and really increase economic benefit, execute sodomites.
Gay marriage should be illegal

Pro says same-sex couples should be executed. Pro offers no net benefits of this. "Should" implies an analysis of net benefits for the state. Pro doesn't offer any possible benefit. That's bigoted garbage, because killing innocent people is a major harm - it's a part of any net benefit analysis. Pro also doesn't explain *why* they "should be executed," or shouldn't be married in general. -- There are two unique benefits to legalizing same-sex marriage. First, same-sex couples that are married have significantly less psychological harm than those that aren't and attributes the cause to the recognition of them as an equal part of society. . http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu... Second, it's a proven fact that people who get married have more weddings. Weddings are seen as an acknowledgement of marriage, and such ceremonies are rarely held among unmarried people (people without legally recognized marriage). As such, legalizing gay marriage - by increasing the number of marriages - creates a boost to the economy, since it creates more jobs in the wedding industry, increases government revenue by sales taxes and increases consumption. . http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...
Internet Censorship is a pointless exercise

Summary: C1 -- I showed the average person knows little of technology and only a small few could get access. Also other laws would ban its watching most likely adding other penalties, and add penalties to manufacturers of the product in that countryadding a deterrent effect; as well as shrinking it's production. C2 -- dropped, still stands. [--pros point--] Freedom of speech, like all rights, has limitations so it's ok to ban some speeches on the Internet. Conclusion - con wins
Internet Censorship is a pointless exercise

C1: Effectiveness I agree that there are ways to circumvent filtering. But with a restricted internet since birth, most of the population will not know how to circumvent those specific proxies. And even if they do, many of them would rather not take the risk. For example if we banned pornography and added a 3 year jail sentence to viewing it within that country many people would be deterred. As psychology shows more punishment more deterrence [1]. So not only must we look at the effectiveness of the actual law[s], we must also look into those factors as deterrence which add to effectiveness. Also an IP block was never refuted, the website would have to change its DNS, change were it is based to change IP, then the people would have to bypass proxies and think youtube is really worth persecution. In other words if we implement all of these procedures, all of which are relevant to the debate, its effectiveness will exist. Also even if 5% of the population can still bypass these systems this means the other 95% either was deterred, the website never changed IPS, or the website did not change DNS. In reality the vast majority of people are not hackers, like I didn't know what a proxy was until recently, so chances are most people will not have access. Which would be effective in restraining its use and production. C2: Cases where censorship is acceptable Extend, point dropped. [--Point brought up by my opponent--]Free speech, this is assuming they are losing free speech, as stated certain censorship is not a loss of free speech. Like all rights, none are absolute. Censorship of threats to the president, for example, are not viewed a breach of free speech. Obscenity, threats, etc. There are multiple exceptions [2]. In other words moderate censorship is ok, nd therefore this point is invalid.CONCLUSION:C1 - defended C2 - My opponent dropped My opponents case - Moderate censorship is totally acceptable Vote CON[1] Gary S. Becker, "Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach," Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 76, No. 2 (1968)[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Internet Censorship is a pointless exercise

Hi, I am sorry about the definitions and about the clarity of the argument. I didn't really think that through! I am arguing that it is easy to get past internet censorship, therefore making it pointless. As I'm sure you know there are several things that can be used to censor the internet. The most used are DNS and packets. DNS censorship is easily bypassed by changing your DNS. (1) Packet filtering is even easier to bypass as all you have to do is go onto a proxy to bypass any filtering. (this works in almost every situation) eg. https://mudpizza.com... These proxy sites even have mailing lists for when new ones are created, or you could make your own private one. I also found this one pretty interesting:http://www.technewsworld.com... There are successful projects such as this one which help people use their free speech in countries with heavy internet censorship.(2) Thanks and sorry for my mess ups earlier. (1)http://www.phacks.net... (2)http://www.peacefire.org...
Ghosts

Do ghosts really exist? Is the term ghosts the correct term? We tend to bring in the supernatural when we have no other explanation. (Meaning we don't know.) My wife and I experienced a 'ghost' both at the same time, which proves to me that they do indeed exist, but what are they really? Could there be a scientific reason for their existence? When it comes to the supernatural, I tend to try for a natural explanation. My research over 50yrs has led me to a different understanding and now I am more excited than I have ever been. Each day brings another challenge. My argument is; ghosts exist, but for reasons that have more to do with evolution than the supernatural.
Ghosts

No, they don't exist. I think they don't because a spooky old ghost wont go around being a poltergeist, and they aren't simply, aren't real. My mother claims she has seen a ghost, but, maybe this could be a figment of your imagination, an illusion. Maybe after a loved one dies, you are very sad, so maybe your brain conjures up something to comfort you? Who knows, maybe ghosts are an illusion, maybe they are real, maybe they are just flying curtains. Maybe life is an illusion?!
Blake's 7 is objectively better than osu!

Finding videos for the theme, I found plenty of comments about the show, many of which stated that Star Trek was more enjoyable. It was a show that arose about 12 years after Star Trek, and after Star Wars, as it was a clear "bandwagon jump" with a low budget cast. A show that cost open space in the hangouts at the feet of trolls is obviously trash. Sources: . http://www.imdb.com...
Blake's 7 is objectively better than osu!

The use of the words weeaboo and anime, by definition, negates your claims that osu is good. As for your second section, Blake's 7 beats Star Trek in basically every way. According to George Takei, Blake's 7 had better dialogue [1]. Blake's 7 also has a better theme [1] [2]. I bring this up since music is clearly important to CON. 1. http://www.blakes7online.com... 2. 3.
Blake's 7 is objectively better than osu!

osu! is a rhythm game, but it is more than a musical game full of circle jerking weeaboos who spam DT to get as much pp as possible on some TV Size anime opening. It's an art, an art of clicking circles. There are no other games that have implicated the intensity of aim, tap, reading, reaction, accuracy, self-mapping, with quite the same community, all under different songs. No other game is like it. If I wanted to watch a popular sci-fi show from the 60s and 70s, I could just watch Star Trek.
Blake's 7 is objectively better than osu!

Point I Blake's 7 is widely recognized as the most revolutionary piece of science fiction television ever, introducing the concepts of seasonal cliffhangers, story arcs, and the first protagonist to be an actual antihero. Meanwhile, osu! is a rhythm game. Point II You may listen to music in osu!, but you'll never see or hear anything as glorious as Brian Croucher sharing the stage with people that actually know how to act [1]. 1. http://ytcropper.com...
Australia is to nice to people seeking asylum

I checked my opponent's profile and discovered that he lives in Claushavn, Greenland (which has a population of 83 by the way). Now, Greenland is a huge country with massive potential mineral resources and I bet Canada has had its beady eyes on it for a while now. Let's face it; Greenland has to rely on Denmark for its defence so they would be a military push over. I wonder if my opponent has ever considered the possibility that, one day, Canadian storm troopers might goose-step into his village and systematically kick down all the igloos, rape the all women and execute all them men? Now, if this happened, suppose my opponent was lucky enough to be clubbing baby seals to death on the beach when the Canadian army rolled into town and he managed to escape on a fishing boat and, after many days of sailing with little food and water, he arrived in Iceland where he sought refuge. However, how would he feel if, instead of the warm welcome he was expecting, he was greeted by a crowd of angry Icelanders who were carrying placards with "Iceland for Icelanders" and "Go home you dirty Eskimo scum" written on them? You see, refugees are not refugees out of choice; they are fleeing their homes and family in a desperate attempt to save their lives. So far, my opponent has been lucky enough to avoid that fate but I suspect he would change his opinion on asylum seekers should he find himself on the run from trigger-happy Canadian Mounties. Thank you.