BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Theresa Winters Should be Sterilised.

I would not have predicted my opponent to have proposed such an interesting alternative. As my assessment of the situation has been accepted, and as my argument has only been rejected by the suggestion of an alternate solution to the issues I have raised then I will concentrate this round on explaining why my opponents 'freak show' suggestion is flawed. To paraphrase my opponents argument, "I believe that she should be enslaved and sold as a freak show exhibit, along with all of her children and her husband. " There are several problems with this, 1: Slavery is illegal and frowned upon. Taking medical decisions on behalf of the mentally handicapped is not. 2: Her children are wards of the state/under the care of new legal, who have done nothing to warrant such a punishment or removal of their freedoms. 3: The 'family' does not appear to be interesting enough, or 'freakish' enough to provide the basis for a commercially viable freak show. Thus I do not feel that this would successfully recoup the costs incurred to the state. 4: Traditional freak shows are highly unpopular in modern British society.
Theresa Winters Should be Sterilised.

My opponent details the case of a very troubled woman with troubled tendencies. He lists the following reasons for advocating the sterilization of Theresa Winters: 1. Theresa WInters is mentally deficient 2. Theresa Winters is morally deficient 3. Theresa Winters has been deemed an unfit mother to 13 children already 4. Her Children are all being raised by the state, likely to be poorly raised, costing taxpayer dollars. 5. She and her husband feed off of the state and do not work I believe that my opponent is completely right in all of his points. However, I do not believe that she should be sterilized. I believe that she should be enslaved and sold as a freak show exhibit, along with all of her children and her husband. As my opponent has pointed out, this woman is clearly out to feed off of taxpayer dollars. The punishment should fit the crime. To simply sterilize her is too easy and does not help solve the problems that she has caused. My proposal is that we put her and her 13 children on display as a freak show exhibit, owned partially by the state and by a well-known travelling circus. In this manner, the revenue that is to be generated by their performances shall go to repaying the state first for all the free care that her children received, then for any other fees incurred upon levying her punishment and such. A further chunk of her money will go towards a fund for orphanages and adoption agencies. Remaining funds will be allocated towards her to use in feeding and providing for her children and she will receive no other financial support other than what she pulls in by teaching her children to jump through flaming hoops, sing songs, ride unicycles, or do any other variety of tricks. This method actually generates revenue, unlike my opponent's suggestion, which only stops the further loss of money. We would still have to pay for her needs, her husband's needs, and the needs of the 14 children. My proposal bypasses all of that.
Theresa Winters Should be Sterilised.

It is my proposition that once Theresa Winters gives birth to her 14th child it should immediately be taken into care and she should be sterilised against her will by the state. This debate is in reference to this article: http://www.thesun.co.uk... My arguments are as follows, Due to mental and moral deficiency she has been deemed as an unfit mother to all 13 of her children thus far. It can be assumed that the 14th child is similarly at risk. Her 13 children are being raised by the state, due to her faults they may never know a stable loving family environment. This is a poor substitute for a normal upbringing. This represents a terrible cost in human suffering, not to mention a bill of millions. Mrs Winters and her husband refuse to work, and live on state benefits. As parasites who refuse to contribute but merely take they cannot be accorded the same rights as others, the interests of the state must take precedence. Theresa Winters claims that she is a reformed character, that though she may have been an unfit mother in the past she is now capable of raising children. She has however made no efforts to prove this to social services and recover any of her 13 children. She therefore has no maternal instincts, and is utterly indifferent to the lives she has created and ruined. Her vow to continue spawning children until social services permit her to keep one shows that she is seriously mentally deficient, she has no understanding of her circumstances, no concerns for her physical health. She is mentally disabled and unfit to make choices for herself, in such instances medical decisions may be made for her.
Ms Paint Battle

Rules 1. Each of us will issue the other a challenge to draw in the next round. 2. Challenges will be 7 words or less. 3. Pro's round 1 and Con's round 5 will have no pictures. Pro's round 1 will contain a challenge, Con's round 5 won't contain anything. 4. Pictures will be hosted on DDO on the debaters' profiles so that they may be accessed easily. Links will be provided in the round. Con's challenge is "Tomatoes eating cows under the moon light"
Men are better than women

Hi, thanks for the opportunity to debate. I take it by "got balls" you are speaking in the literal sense of possessing testes, rather than the figurative sense of being courageous. So please tell me, what's so good about balls? Balls are impractical and not aesthetically pleasing. They can become itchy in hot weather and are incredibly sensitive to impact. Women, amongst their many other wonderful features, have boobies. Boobies are great. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Thank you. [1] http://static.thehollywoodgossip.com... [2] http://i.telegraph.co.uk... [3] http://i43.tinypic.com... [4] http://adult-myspace-comments.com... [5] http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com...
My first time!

My first time? Could have meant anything, But thought I'd supply a powerful entree. I'm guessing there are some big ego's on this site, And I aspire to them. However, I live and die by my morality, If that's okay? In my opinion, Our Government are corrupted, Weak, Self serving, And are probably doing an okay job. That's my Q In future reply's, I may swear, Spell badly, Use bad grammar(like in the last sentence)But one thing is for sure, I will debate you.
Iran had a right to declare war on Iraq

I would like to start out with pointing out problems with the Iraqi government at the time. Saddam Hussein was a Sunni Muslim leading a nation with mostly Shias and two of the Holiest Shia sites are there tomb of Hussien in Karbala and of Abbas than the tomb of Ali in Najaf. Iran had a Islamic revolution lead by a Shi'ite Aytollah were Iran is a Shi'ite nation as well. Saddam Hussien attacked the Shi'ite Majority in Iraq. He also claimed to be a Ba'ath party meber which the Iranian Revolutionary Governmet allied with. Syria & Iran both saw flaws in Saddam's Rule to a point were latter in the gulf wars they attacked Iraq. Saddam also created a conscripts policy which is Haram(Against Islam) for a Islamic nation or for a Muslim or Muslims in general. The Soviet Union also condemned Iraq in the Gulf War latter on. Saddam Hussien also had plans to attack Kuwait and did. Ayatollah Ruhollah Kohmeni the wise knew that he was oppressing Shi'ites this was more than a war this was a Jihad.
Iran had a right to declare war on Iraq

Iran had the right to invade Iraq the Caus Belili was obvious. Saddam Hussien was a insult to the Ba'ath Party of Iraq and attacked the Shi'ite Majortiy that Iran became the defender of in 1979. Saddam also Funded Wahabi Groups which is Anti-Shia and a embarrassment to Islam. He also petrayed the Arab Socialist Ba'ath party and acted more like a Fascist than a Socialist. He also betrayed the Assad family in Syria banned Ashura and Closed of Imam Hussien and Ali shrines. He was a Sunni running a Shi'ite Nation and oppressing the Shi'ite Majorty. He was nothing more than a American puppet tyrant he must be suppressed.
Public colleges and universities have the right to restrict campus speech.

My argument for R2 shall contain: Federal crimes (like hate speech and transmitting illegal information) shall of course be illegal. An actual argument shall not be blocked just because you disagree with them and think their argument is immoral or intolerable. To my Arguments: Me and my opponent agree on 2 things. We agree that Hate speech and giving away illegal information on campus should be published. I believe these two things should be punished because the are Federal Crimes. The University does have the right to punish students for federal crimes, and get the police involved to prosecute the person. Hate speech like the example you mentioned shall of course be looked into and the sayer of the Hate Speech shall be prosecuted under the law. But, if the person believes that homosexuality is wrong, and expresses his views in a respectful manner to everyone around him, he should be debated, not yelled at. That directly leads me to my second point, which is, that if anyone has an actual argument that he can back up by evidence and support, that person should not be yelled at and there argument should not be thrown in the trash and ignored. Instead, they should be debated in a respectful and proper manner, as in the manner that me and you are debating now. Most of this argument revolves around not the academic institution refusing to let somebody speak, but students at that institution not letting the speaker speak. There is one instance in particular that I would like to point out. Milo Yiannopoulos, a right-winger who was once a senior editor for Breitbart, was invited to speak at Berkeley College, in California, by the Berkeley College Republicans. Things turned violent when Yiannopoulos showed up and Yiannopoulos had to be evacuated from the campus. This type of protest should not be allowed on a campus and I firmly believe that Milo Yiannopoulos should have been able to speak freely, though I strongly disagree with him on many issues. In Summation: I believe that federal crimes, such as hate speech and illegal information, should be tried and punished by the university and the law. I believe that a person with an argument that can be backed up by evidence, should be able to speak freely without being threatened or abused for doing so.
The user known as Bradley_Steven_Perry should be banned.

“When I see you, I think "I wonder which face she sees when she looks into the mirror.” R13; C. JoyBell C. You may have noticed that a few Disney actors and actresses have been signing up on debate.org. You might be naive and gullible and think they are real, or you might be very skeptical and realize it is most likely true that they are fakes. Harm one: Faking accounts of celebs hurt their careers. http://www.newindianexpress.com... Mandate: Bradley_Steven_Perry shall prove he is who he says he is. Advantages: We will know who he is and it will prove he is or is not a pedophile.
The user known as Bradley_Steven_Perry should be banned.

Full resolution: The user as Bradley_Steven_Perry should be banned because he has not shown any substantial evidence that he is the actor shown on this “extremely credible website”: http://en.wikipedia.org... A few things to know before this debate round begins: 1) There will be four rounds of this debate 2) The voting period will be one month 3) We will each have 72 hours to debate 4) We will be allotted 10,000 characters for each round 5) First round for acceptance 6) Second round both Pro and Con will present their cases 7) Third round for rebuttals 8) Fourth round will be for voting issues 9) No use of profanity will be allowed 10) Forfeit will equal a 7 point loss on that opponent’s side 11) There is to be expected mild slandering in debate arguments 12) If Con does not accept this debate he will be conceding that he is indeed a pedophile and a fake. A few terms to clarify before we debate: 1) Bradley Steven Perry an actor on Disney XD [1] 2) User: a person or thing that uses something [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... 3) Known: generally accepted as something specified [3] http://www.merriam-webster.com... 4) Should: Used to express obligation or duty [4] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 5) Banned: A prohibition imposed by law or official decree [5] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 6) Shown: to cause or allow to be seen; exhibit; display. [6] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 7) Substantial: Considerable in importance, value, degree, amount, or extent [7] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 8) Evidence: A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment [8] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 9) “Extremely Credible Website”: Sarcasm Thank you and I look forward to debating this intense resolution.
Organized Religion Should be Abolished Worldwide

" If God or gods are unwilling to give special protection on the cusp of their entire religion being dissolved then God, or gods are useless" You have not addressed my response to this, why would God protect people who you have argued are essentially morally bankrupt? You argued that we need to abolish religion to invoke God to see which religion would be protected. I argued that God would not necessarily protect any given religion. My argument was from Ezra. Your response to this was that God stayed silent in Ezra because it was punishment for their usual breaking of God's standards. You also argued that religious people today are not in line with their holy texts, and are immoral. I argued if this was the case, God would not protect them. Hence, if we abolish world religions, we are back to square one. God would not necessarily even respond. Hence your first premise was disproved. "Your counter was that world leaders didn't destroy it but instead usurp it. Really? To usurp and rebuild into something else is to essentially basically abolish organized religion" Using Revelation to support the view that we need to do an experiment to see which religion is true is not valid, in Revelation they believe they have received the true religion because of the antichrist's presence on the earth. One could argue that the current religions were abolished, but it was not an experiment, the scenario in Revelation was a replacement of religions with another, again, not a provoking of God. "You never gave me an argument. You rebutted, yes. But you gave no argument of your own." So I suppose the possibility of mass killings and global war was not strong enough to dissuade you? "And that's the problem. During the entirety of the debate you haven't given a single reason, compelling or not, to keep organized religion. You gave no reason to keep religion and instead reduced yourself to arguing religious interpretations. You fell for that distraction and missed the debate completely. You did just as the confused religions do themselves; get so caught up in meaningless nuances and interpretations you fail to contribute any real good to the problems at hand. A distraction mankind would be better of without. Organized religion should be abolished. You lose, good day sir." Attacking my responses and disproving my responses are two different things. Stating I lose and defeating me in a debate are two different things as well. -DoulousChristos "
Organized Religion Should be Abolished Worldwide

I would not say that I have undermined my own premise. I set out to give reasons why it would be a good idea to get rid organized religion. The only premise I needed to uphold was to show why it would be a good idea. And I gave two. First I stated the possibility of invoking or provoking God, or we could say even gods. You argued that God doesn't necessarily give special protection. You failed to see the point. If God or gods are unwilling to give special protection on the cusp of their entire religion being dissolved then God, or gods are useless. I cited prophecy in regard to the end of false religion to show that it could be a precursor to the beginning of a new world of peace. Your counter was that world leaders didn't destroy it but instead usurp it. Really? To usurp and rebuild into something else is to essentially basically abolish organized religion. Your suggestion still results in the abolishment of current organized religion worldwide. The point of the argument was that we potentially get an answer to any doubts regarding God, or we usher in a new age of peace. If God, or gods fail to answer the call to action we can do away with religion and move on. After all what use do we have for gods of inaction? You never gave me an argument. You rebutted, yes. But you gave no argument of your own. Then I gave my second argument that religion has failed. If they are so evil that God and gods would do nothing to protect them then it would only further justify their being abolished. The purpose of this debate was to prove why abolishing organized religion is a good idea not to get God to act. Getting God to act is a potential bonus. The premise of the arguments are essentially: there are some good reasons to abolish organized religion. 1) maybe get God to do something and usher in an age of peace or 2) get rid of a failing drain on society that has directly or indirectly caused the deaths and suffering of millions. This fact you did not directly challenged at all. The second reason is not dependent on gods at all. You have spent the entire debate trying find fault in the premise of my arguments, but you failed. Instead you have essentially said, "But if religions are so bad why would God help them, he might not do anything at all." Exactly. If religion is so screwed up God and gods don't want them why should we keep them? And that's the problem. During the entirety of the debate you haven't given a single reason, compelling or not, to keep organized religion. You gave no reason to keep religion and instead reduced yourself to arguing religious interpretations. You fell for that distraction and missed the debate completely. You did just as the confused religions do themselves; get so caught up in meaningless nuances and interpretations you fail to contribute any real good to the problems at hand. A distraction mankind would be better of without. Organized religion should be abolished. You lose, good day sir.
Organized Religion Should be Abolished Worldwide

"Religion has failed and more effectively organizes people into potential terrorist organizations ready to mobilize against the government" " Religion has caused or propagated many of the wars and disgusting act of violence throughout history. It's leaders are hypocritical and violate standard moral conduct frequently. Many religions can't even decide what should be their own standard for moral conduct. Instead many compromise morality to bend to the trends of society. Why? To make money? To hold onto political influence? In many cases, yes, for these reasons exactly. Religions constantly compromise; they're a lie" If, as you say, religions are so evil, and their followers so corrupt, what would make you think God would intervene when these religions are being attacked? You have undermined your own premise. You have started out by saying that if we attack these religions, God would intervene and defend the right one. When I challenged that premise by citing examples from Scripture that prove contrary, your explanation is God remained silent because it was a response to them not upholding God's laws and standards. Now you claim that religionists are across the board immoral and religion is evil, and we should attack them to provoke a response. According to your own standards that response would be silence. Since many religionists , according to you, live out of line with their holy texts, they are by all means a mirroring of the Jews during Ezra's time. Hence God's response, silence. If you state the opposite, that there are some religious people who are good, moral, and decent human beings, who are in line with their holy texts, then what justification do you have to essentially wage war on the innocent? In regards to the prophecies you cite in Revelation, you state: " the Christian Greek scriptures of Revelation the world leaders are supposed to turn on religion and destroy it. " Not quite. In Revelation the world leaders do not turn on religion and destroy it, they usurp it and set up a unified world religion, they don't eradicate religion they just make a global one. This is seen in the 13-17 chapters for anyone looking for a citation.
Organized Religion Should be Abolished Worldwide

"If God exists and has a say in the matter God will do something to protect his religion" This is not necessairly the entire premise of my argument. By citing Ezra and the destruction of Jerusalem you mention that the destruction of a religion is often allowed by God and that he would not necessarily intervene, but this is very conditional. In regard to the destruction Jerusalem, though, it was prophesied in response to the people's failure to uphold God's laws and standards. In other instances when the nation was under threat separate from prophecy, God did react. Also you failed to address the argument regarding Chrisitan prophecy foretelling the destruction of false religion. My argument is two fold, attack his people without provocation to provoke a response consistent with examples from Judaism, or fulfill prophecy similar to that presented in Christianity and invoke his action. This way we can actually cover all his sovereign purposes. Your statements about the propensity toward violence leads to my second argument. Religion has failed and more effectively organizes people into potential terrorist organizations ready to mobilize against the government. Many will claim that their religion is one of peace and that it instills good moral standards among it's practitioners. But as you recognize, their are many willing to fight, die and commit acts of violence as soon as they can for their religion contrary to the teachings of their Holy texts. How less warranted would this violence be if their own god wasn't willing to even defend them. Religion breeds this kind of ignorant violence. Religion has caused or propagated many of the wars and disgusting act of violence throughout history. It's leaders are hypocritical and violate standard moral conduct frequently. Many religions can't even decide what should be their own standard for moral conduct. Instead many compromise morality to bend to the trends of society. Why? To make money? To hold onto political influence? In many cases, yes, for these reasons exactly. Religions constantly compromise; they're a lie. But they are influential in inciting people to violence. Maybe this endeavor will result in blood shed, but it will be religion to cast the first stone, which will only serve to reveal its cancerous nature in society and further merit its swift removal. At best religion is like a benign tumor and it would be better to have it removed. Otherwise, its full blown cancer needing to be removed. How long should the parasite of religion be allowed to leech off the government and spread it's infection of ignorance and hate throughout society?