BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage

I see you are against homosexual marriage. Why? A gay person has the same feelings as you. He loves his parents the same way you do. He puts on his pants one leg at a time. He can cook. He can hold down a job. In a society where we are trying to integrate gays into society more, why shouldn't they have the same rights us everyone else? Why do you have more of a right to marry the woman of your dreams, than I do to marry the man of my dreams? It's completely unreasonable that they should not be allowed to get married. Good luck to the both of us, young one.
Police profiling

If you want to debate what you consider "police profiling" to be, feel free to start an open debate about it, and I'm sure someone - but not me - will take up the debate. But you singled me out for this debate, because you saw in my profile that I marked that I was for police profiling. Since it is essentially my stance that is being debated here, we must stick to what I meant by my stance. And what I meant is the sort of thing I talked about in my first round. You are responsible for proving that that stance is wrong, and everything else is irrelevant to the topic of debate. This is exactly why I usually decline debates when I am singled out for them based on what I mark on my profile. The stances I have marked there are all way more complex than what can be shown on my profile, and when people assume they know what I mean, things like this are bound to happen if I go along with it.
Police profiling

OK, so since my argument is apperantly being simplistic, feel free to widen the field at any time. Also, if what you are talking about is the application of logic used to narrow down the suspect fields (ie "You're black, so we'd rather spend our time looking into our suspicions of you than this white guy over here, because our witnesses agree it was a black man who did it."), then why is this an issue to be debated at all? I believe that we are talking about more than a basic use of logic. I believe that this is about applying sterotypes - "this seems like the kind of thing a black person would do, so we are going to work off the assumption that a black person is responsible." We aren't talking about the type of situation where a reliable eyewitness is available. As a side note, have you noticed how easy it is to change/disguise skin color? Just because you have not been convicted of a crime, it does not mean that anyone else has not wrongly been convicted based on skin color. I hate to say it, but being white gives a certain degree of protection in America. Try being a different color and see how you are looked at and what assumptions are made about you, your background, and your intellect.Or speaking a different language out in public and see the looks you get.It's not pretty. By the way, are you going to address what I said about globalization?
Police profiling

Since this topic isn't really all that complex, and since you have set the precedent of making a less extensive case for your side, I will follow suit. You say that if profiling were used for crimes committed by white teenage males, I "could end up with a life sentence for a crime that [I] didn't commit simply because [I was] in the wrong place at the wrong time". This is a flawed argument for two reasons: First, because profiling IS used against white male teenagers, just as much as it is against anyone else, and my criminal record is just as clean as it was the day I was born. Second, because profiling doesn't bring about convictions on its own. What we're talking about here is not, "You're black, so you must be guilty because the witnesses agree it was a black person who did it", but rather, "You're black, so we'd rather spend our time looking into our suspicions of you than this white guy over here, because our witnesses agree it was a black man who did it." This is not the terrible, evil practice you try to make it out to be. It makes simple, logical sense; and without it, police would lack one of the most effective tools they have for narrowing down the field of suspects.
Police profiling

How can you be for police profiling? What if they were to start profiling white teenage males? You could end up with a life sentence for a crime that you didn't commit simply because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Think about all of the racial prejudices there are - we are living in the "enlightened" 21st century! Aren't we supposed to be able to figure out who committed crimes without regressing to the Dark Ages of "let's hang him because it's convient"? This society, which is increasingly based on globalization, cannot function with a police force that runs on a profiling basis.
Rap battle

Thanks GeorgiaAshley. I enjoyed your post. I'll give it another go at free styling. Right now what's on my mind, is this rap battle on debate.org Got to think of some genuine material, don't want to be called a fraud So I'm about to mix things up, and reach into the recesses of my mind, And think of past experiences and see what I can find, First thing that pops up, is the struggles of my life, When I think of all I've been through, I wonder how I'm still alive Could it be the will to carry on, that's always pulled me through Or maybe it is those who helped me along the way, otherwise what would I do Pausing to reflect, I think it's obvious to decide, It's a combination of the two With a little hint of pride, But not so much that I reject, all those who helped me rise.
Rap battle

Awesome, good job! Here I go again... :) So you think you got the swag Man you such a drag I got more swagger That dam MC Jagger I be pulling boys like you've never seen Baby its good cos my rap's clean Chicks be hating When i'm debating Over who has swagger Me or MC Jagger The obvious choice Would be me and my voice Cos baby I got it I am the perfect fit To cinderalla's shoe Yup yup, me not you Just wondering Above all thangs If cindys shoe fit so perfectly then why did it fall I'm sorry if its nosy, but she ruined the ball? Just saying. :)
Rap battle

Thanks GeorgiaAshley, Well done. Here is my go. While I write this rhyme my pen is red, Cause I got so much anger running through my head The words charge out like a Taurus bull to a rag If this was wrestle mania, I'd still bet you'd tag If this was just a tea party, I'd still make you mad If you were Stallone or Arnie, you would still think I'm fab Because I'm superior, interior, exterior, rewind, All I hear is people say, is that man designed When in reality, it's all about the power of mind.
Rap battle

Thank you for accepting. This is my first rap battle ever! So I guess it should be even! :) Sure you can say these word before I say' em But you aint take the sting outta these words before i lay' em Cos there aint no way Imma let you stop me from causing mayhem When I say imma do something I do it I don't give a dam what you think So mhm the worlds full of beans Its gassed up If it thinks its stopping me I will be what i set out to be Without a doubt I'm telling me And all those who look down I'm tearing down your balcony No if ands or buts Try to ask me why i halcony From infinate plans Down to the last bit of me...
Rap battle

Thanks GeorgiaAshley I enjoyed your last post, Here is my final contribution. Thanks for creating the debate, and good luck for the final round. When I look out into the universe, I'm always mystified I try to grasp the ins and outs, but somehow, answers are denied Each night I lay my head to rest with the comfort that I've tried, To unravel all the mystery, that's right before my very eyes I thank my lucky stars above for a universe that's surreal That's full of enigma and the like, where no one knows the deal I would not want to live in a world, so tiny I could find The answer to every riddle, that permeated all mankind A boring world, it would become, with no mystery to reveal This precious life we must cherish and realise it's real value Only then will things begin to shine, like all the stars from up above When find that this here universe, is offering us, it's love.
Parents are to blame for the childrens behaviour

I stand pro for the follwing statment, ELABORATION. <> Parents seem to blame there children for there erratic behaviour growing up Although it can be justified that the behaviour can be pressured by peers, Children are brought up to know the rights and wrongs and therefore children ,teens wouldn"t have such a difficult childhood if they had parents they could aspire and look up to. i descry to have someone who is serious about this subject and can stand as a strong Con. Thanks
regligion

I'm tempted to just type 'extend points' and leave it at that, but I'm bored enough to try to explain myself. Anyway, a question to the viewers, and Con as well:What is wrong with the following statement: "IF YOU WANT TO TREAT US BAD I WILL TREAT YOU LIKE A PIECE OF GARAGE AND treat you like I hate you. " (sic)(source: Con). Besides the irregular use of caps lock, the fact that caps lock was used in the first place, and pretty funny spelling errors, Con is basically promoting 'justified retribution'. So, to answer my own question, nothing. Nothing is wrong with that statement. At least, not with the intended meaning of it -- justified retribution is justified, and self-defence is a right. Ergo, when religious sects like ISIS become dangerous, we have a right to defend ourselves, thereby treating them 'bad' simply because they belong to whatever religion ISIS actually is (extreme fundamentalist islamic activism? ). We are doing this now. A lot of people are very happy that we are doing this now. We are probably doing good to the world by suppressing that religion, but that's also debateable. In any case, the RESOLUTION, which is "should people put people in religions or treat people bad beacsue of their religion" (sic), has been conclusively proven as 'yes', which is what I assume I've been arguing this entire time. We SHOULD convert people, and we SHOULD treat people wrongly because of the religion they follow. Thank youHowever, I feel as if I should respond to CON beyond this, if only to satisfy my curiosity as to his reaction. Here are some comments on CON's round two argument:If I were treated like 'that' -- assuming 'that' is the same as the 'bad' you were using previously -- I would probably be more passive than the black freedom activists you mentioned. This is through my own faults though, and I would like to hope that I would join the racial equality movement. The American constitution is a piece of garbage written by crusty old elitists who were completely out of touch with even their own world, much less ours. I'd like to remind that the founding party, the Federalists, started losing elections pretty quickly. Also, did you know that the 3/5ths compromise is still in the constitution? Officially, all 'other persons', which thankfully no longer includes persons of color, still help their states with voting. I'm sorry about your great great great grandfather. To console you, I'd mention that I'm Polish and that my great grandparents and great great grandparents were sent to places like Aushwitz, forced to fight in WWI, and were tortured by UB officers, but I'd seem unappreciating. Thank you for any services your ancestor may have given, and keep in mind that there's more than just one problem in this world. I agree. Treating people malignantly isn't what God wants. I don't say the pledge of allegiance anyway. Sorry. I don't necessarily want to be bad. Jesus is GodThank you for the blessing. And I admire your confidence for victory. Anyhow, thanks for posting.
regligion

i disagree. you should not treat people like that.what if you were treated like that..all the blacks in the days fought for equal rights and freedom and it says that in THE CONSTITUTION AND SO IF YOU WANT TO TREAT US BAD I WILL TREAT YOU LIKE A PIECE OF GARAGE AND treat you like i hate you.i love whites and black .IT IS NOT RIGHT TO TREAT PEOPLE LIKE That.WHITE PEOPLE SHOT MY GREAT GREAT GREAT GRANDFATHER BECAUSE HE REALLY WANTED EQUAL RIGHT AND NOT BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY THEN EVERYONE SO PLEASE CHANGE YOUR MIND CAUSE TREATING PEOPLE BAD IS NOT GOD. DON'T YOU SAY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." so u wanna be bad. y'all gonna pass through me first then Jesus then god Amen May god bless y'all Debate over i won. period.
regligion

I accept, assuming BoP is shared.My position is as follows: yes, people should put people in religions or treat people bad beacsue of their religion. (sic)Religion - the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power (google)First Argument I think we should put people in religions (convert them). But why, some say, total religious conversion? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to convert people. We choose to convert people in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.So there you have it.Second ArgumentPeople should treat other people bad because of their religion. This is because some religious sects are dangerous and destructive[1][2][3][4], and we need to protect ourselves and our citzens. Often, this necessitates 'treating them bad'.Sources: 1 http://www.cnn.com...2 http://dailysignal.com...3 https://www.quora.com...4 http://time.com...JFK
If you are a true Christian, then you cannot believe Abortion is not Murder.

God in the bible clearly does not value the lives of infants. See verses like 2 Samuel 12:14, where god promises to kill the children of the enemies of Israel as punishment. In fact, there's even a biblical way of having an abortion. The book of numbers, chapter 5, verses 19 through 31 describe a punishment wherein a woman is given a bitter concoction to drink, that will kill her fetus if she has cheated. I doubt that it was so selective in reality, but even if it actually did target only adulterers, the point is still that this is abortion sanctioned by mosaic law. If the premise that killing a fetus must always be wrong is true, than your god has also done wrong. But if the bible is the literal word of god, god is infallible. So one or the other must be false, which is it? In addition, you have failed to substantiate the claim that one is not a "true" Christian if they support abortion. What is a true Christian? Why do you think that a true Christian must be a conservative literalist? Are Catholics not true Christians, since they don't view genesis as literal?
It is probable for God to exist

TERMSResolved: It is probable that God exists.Rounds:1. Acceptance only2. Opening arguments3. Clash4. Closing arguments/clashFor the purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined broadly as to include the general attributes (ie: omnipotence, omniscience) commonly associated with Judeo-Christian monotheism. This definition primarily concerns general revelation, and hence special doctrines such as the incarnation and Trinity are not relevant to this debate. "Probable" will be defined as being more likely than not.The time limit between replies is 72 hours. If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. If one side explicitly concedes or violates any of these terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other. By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.
It is probable for God to exist

I can tell this is going to be a tough debate. My opponent is arguing for the Biblical god to exist so he makes my resolution a lot easier. With all do respect for my opponent, I had a little trouble understanding your opening arguments so please forgive me if I misunderstand you.My opponent first argues that the universe must have a supernatural origin and was documented in peer-reviewed science journals. This is the argument from authority (i.e. because these scientist believe it, that settles it). My opponent starts out as a form of a cosmological argument stating that everything that has a beginning must have a cause. This is false as there are things that begin to exist without a cause. Quantum fluctuations are completely random, uncaused events."...Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature. ..." ~~Victor Stenger [1]Secondly, my opponent contends that the gospels are more valuable as a historical document in comparison to the classical writings of Greece and Rome. I say that this is not true. We do not know for sure who wrote the gospels, furthermore, there are blatant contradictions in it! According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death [2]. Therefore, the gospels give different accoutns on when he was born. Furthermore, Luke contradicts himself! I contend that there is no reliable evidence for Jesus' ressurection. The "empty tomb" is a historical fabrication and I can easily demonstrate that in the next round. Thirdly, my opponent cites that it is improbable for the intellegent life to appear on earth. Note the word "improbable" and not impossible. The universe is 13 billion light years across; contains countless galaxies; and countless solar systems. Therefore, we can conclude that the universe is a "lottery" game. The more it is played, the better change we have at a winner. Who knows? There could be multiple worlds with life on it.Since my opponent cited the Christian god as his god, I will present a new evidence: God is perfect (by definition). Therefore any decisions God makes must also be perfect Hence, God cannot change his mind. God changed his mind. Hence, he is not perfect and non existent. P1-2 are self explanatory. If God changes his mind, he has found a more perfect solution to his original anticipation and thus originally made an imperfect decision. We see throughout the Bible God changing his mind such as God talking about "repenting" of the evil that he said he would do. I can get more in depth in the next round.I am sorry to my opponent if I misunderstood your case. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________[1] http://www.infidels.org...[2] http://www.infidels.org...
Smoking should be treated as a drug and made illegal in NZ.

You've dropped all my arguments here. All you've done is say things like "black market" and "job loss". What about the black market and job loss? Are you saying I should have used those arguments? I still can use them if I need them. You can't tell me what arguments I can and can't use. Why did you even bring them up without posting counter arguments as well? Because the fact is that banning smoking will result in a black market, it will result in a loss of jobs, it will result in less tax money and it will make more people into "criminals". What do you have to say to defend against this? What do you have to say about the arguments I laid out last for too? You're supposed to be debating here, not just re-stating your position.
Smoking should be treated as a drug and made illegal in NZ.

If i may point out there are several points you have not made: The black market Loss of jobs Government will lose money because they get tax from every cigarette sold More people will be jailed and arrested... Do not use these points as you did not come up with them. Sure you could say that you are focusing on the wider scheme of things but it is these small things that mount up to BIG problems. Smoking, once again, is a money and time consumer throughout NZ. It should treated as a drug and made illegal, regardless of the issue of obesity, that is an entirely different argument, please lets just stick to this one, you are quite clearly wavering off the subject...
Smoking should be treated as a drug and made illegal in NZ.

Okay so the argument you are making here is pretty much completely irrelevant. You smoking is different from obesity. It is, but why does that matter? they are the same in that they both are a burden on the healthcare system, actually obesity is an even greater burden now, so you can't just ignore obesity because its different from smoking without explaining why that difference is relevant to the debate. You say "If someone needs treatment they need treatment, it is not something we can control." So we can't control how much treatment we are giving to people who don't care about their health, but we CAN control what people are allowed to spend their money on? I don't see how that is any more fair. You then say that smokers cost more to the healthcare system than obesity, but this isn't true, "Obese men rack up an additional $1,152 a year in medical spending, especially for hospitalizations and prescription drugs, Cawley and Chad Meyerhoefer of Lehigh University reported in January in the Journal of Health Economics. Obese women account for an extra $3,613 a year." "Reuters is reporting that obesity in America is now adding an astounding $190 billion to the annual national healthcare price tag, exceeding smoking as public health enemy number one when it comes to cost." [1] You then list a bunch of bad things that happen to you when you smoke. This is irrelevant, we already agree that smoking is bad for you. The list of reasons why you liked/hated smoking also doesn't mean anything to our debate. the same can be said for your story. The only thing that matters is if you can justify not letting people buy cigarettes, and if your only reason is because smoking is bad for you then I would say that obesity is also bad for you but we don't ban McDonald's. So you're contradicting yourself. 1. http://www.forbes.com...
Smoking should be treated as a drug and made illegal in NZ.

The problem with your argument is that it misses the mark. If the problem is that smokers are draining a lot of money out of the healthcare industry, then the healthcare industry should be reformed to offer less support for those who choose to smoke. That's the main point, after all. they CHOSE to smoke and they should have a right to make that choice. It's there money after all, they earned it. Sure, it's not a very good use of ones money, but all our spending could arguably go towards something more important, because everyone has a different idea about what is the most important thing. I mean, who would decide what people should spend their money on if not themselves? Also, fast food isn't good for you either. In fact obesity is now a bigger killer than smoking (which makes it number 1) in Australia [1]. I know we're talking about NZ and not Australia, but if it can happen in Australia, then it can happen here too. Should fast food be illegal too? If not, then your argument doesn't work. To conclude, people have the right to spend their own money the way they want so long as it doesn't hurt other people and if they are draining money out of the healthcare system, then the problem is that the healthcare system is too generous to the people who care the least about their health. That's the problem, not cigarettes, and so the solution should directly affect the problem, not a consumers right to buy and smoke cigarettes. 1. http://www.smh.com.au...