BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The U.S. shuld build and maintain a border fence.

A border fence should be one of the mechanisms used to control immigration and the flow of goods over U.S. borders. There are already border fences in place and they should be maintained. Border fences should be extended as needed to aid border security. This should include an approximately 700 mile double fence on the US border with Mexico.A border fence is not needed everywhere. There are natural obstacles in some places and in other places there are less expensive enforcement techniques. The fundamental contention is that a border fence is a cost-effective part of border enforcement.The context of this debate is the present day United States. For this debate a border "fence" is broadly construed to mean any type of structural barrier.Thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate.In this debate I will number references sequential from the start of the debate. This allows citing a reference in a previous round by just giving the number of the reference without also giving the round number. Con need not use my numbering system.RulesThis opening round is for definitions and acceptance only. I will give the Pro case at the start of the second round.Standard debate conventions apply. I list them here for the benefit of new debaters and readers. I believe there is nothing tricky or eccentric. Both sides agree to the following rules, and that violating the rules is a conduct violation, with anything contrary to the rules to be ignored by readers judging the debate:DR 1. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored.DR 2. Source links or references must be included within the 8000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links or sources are permitted in comments.DR 3 Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. DR 4. No new arguments shall be made in Round 4. Pro may rebut previous arguments using new evidence solely for that purpose, but no new arguments are allowed. Con may not present any new evidence in R4.DR 5. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted.
homosexual marriage

Okok , so lets talk of the Bible. If you are telling me that what the bible says about homosexuality should not be taken in consideration for christians, then, Is the bible really relevant for you? , so, the bible would not matter for you?. How can you prove that homosexuality is natural? , what if it is not? , maybe its something psycological and we can really be cure by treatment. The catholic church, as well as many other religions would never accept gay marriage, why? , because it is in the bible, if they forget that part of the Bible, then, the Bible itsel would not be relevant. There is no scientific prove that says that homosexuals are born that way! , so, maybe we will be happier if we get treatment. In therms of healty measures, gay people also have a greater rate of deaths.
homosexual marriage

Ok I still would like to practice so here is my argument. The deceleration of independence says all men were created equal. Gay men and women are people right. Does it say all men except gay people it also says with life liberty and pursuit of happiness. When people marry they are happy. If we cannot marry then it is unconstitutional as we can not pursue happiness. Now a lot of people bring up the Bible (I am a Christian) and it says homosexuals cannot enter heaven. But that was apart of ancient israils holy laws. Holy means set apart for. Some other laws were certain meat cannot be eaten and no clothes with diffreny fabric. But those laws have been uplifted and the Bible was written more than 2000years ago in ancient Greek the word dosent translate over so the Catholic church added it in. And some argue that it is just weird and unnatural. Actually homosexual is a physical and mental attraction so if God made us who we are then he made us gay. Just like being straight is a mental and physical attraction. So if straight should marry why cant homosexuals
homosexual marriage

Hi!! , I am gay myself, and of course I think that is completely natural, at least for me. I am in favor of gay unions, but I am against gay marriage. Why? . Because one simple reason, the word "marriage" has a religious connotation. I think that the right think to do is to abolish marriage ( all kind of marriage) , and gave civil unions for all the citizens, it would be the same think as marriage, but it would not have a religion connotation.
Moving beyond talking...debating.

Hello, thank you for hosting this debate. This is the first debate in which I will engage on this website, for the purposes of engaging in three full debates in order to participate in voting on other debates. Apologies in advance if I do not conform to this website's rules and formats. Regarding this debate specifically, I do not fully understand the argument. My guess is that the PRO side is arguing for Artificial Intelligence to move beyond the discussion phase and into a debating phase. My counterargument is that discussing and debating a topic are one and the same and thus this topic is a non-sequitor. I move to win by default. The PRO side is most likely looking for a "green light" in order to progress his cause that AI become integrated into society.
Moving beyond talking...debating.

It's the Ageless Power Dance of Time baby but the standard partners of time; Gods, ruling elites and us"the mass, must now make room for one more entity: Artificial Intelligence. We are a communal animal who must learn quickly, to move beyond mere chit-chat. Why? Here's where we are at: Autonomous machinery comes with 2 calamitous consequences: 1) higher-thinking technology goes mobile. It's Strong AI in-the-making. Right now it"s a Baby Goliath stage but expected to reach adulthood within the next 20 years"a Mr. Invincible AI done deal stage. Currently though, it's just a matter of what look desktop brains going mobile will get dressed up as: cars, drones, soldiers"human workers. A) Governments are not the only power entity funding the advancement of strong AI. B) Fat-cats don't fork up billions in development bucks if not for projected returns. This is why the current techno-stage is called JOB-ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGIES. 2) Technology adapts incredibly fast compared to us so it won't be long before Baby-G is all grow'd up: when Superintelligence comes to pound down our door. David is currently locked in a faceoff with Baby-G yet we continue to act as though we're but mere spectators just hanging out on the sidelines waiting for our government to hand David a deterrent. Humanity can't afford to keep dismissing this human versus machine showdown as little more than Hollywood hype. We must learn to move en-masse quickly, as we are the only partner in the ageless power dance powerful enough to stall these advancements"to give humanity time to adapt. The fate of the human future, our own kids" future, rests in our hands right now because with technology"prevention is key. WE are that deterrent but our clock"s a-ticking to nano-time. Somehow, somewhere, we must learn a new dance step"together. This debate forum, like any forum, must help us move towards DOING"quickly. Otherwise, this debate, like any debate any of you have ever posted or particpated in here, moves us too slowly. http://www.dancingpartners.info... is that somewhere start looking to move us beyond mere debate. Now if you think inserting this URL might be a cheezy stump, you'd be right. However, for this forum, I'm backing my fervent belief up: We must move beyond debate time. I would have posted this elsewhere, but I didn't see that option. What I do see, is a site that has engaged people though and that's a great start. I guess if a post must first get debated here before moving on then just know: if your arguement will be that forums raise awareness then let me help you. Yes"just not fast enough.
Moving beyond talking...debating.

1) My opponent has stated that " it seems as though [CON does] understand, somewhat at least."Unfortunately this is not true. I am making wild guesses as to what exactly PRO's argument entails. I have yet to receive a definitive statement that I can understand from PRO that would comprise PRO's argument.I don't have a counterargument to PRO's argument, but merely a counterargument to MY GUESS as to what PRO's argument MIGHT be. 2) My opponent stated that "[CON's] argument lies in this; we are a democracy with inalienable rights and therefore a totalitarian existence is what I'm promoting."This is not true. My counterargument to MY GUESS as to what PRO's argument is is that " Given that each individual differs significantly from other individuals, I cannot advocate that all individuals act in a collective manner for any extended period of time."I stated that "Totalitarian societies would have a much easier time executing what you advocate," not that "totalitarian existence is what [PRO is] promoting." This is not even an argument relevant to the discussion. At least, I don't think it is, because I still do not know about what we are discussing.Later on, PRO asks "do you think this communal species has evolved yet to a place where we can ensure the direction we are lead is what we want without eminent danger nipping at our heals or not?". I will assume this is the main argument, and that PRO has taken a positive position on this issue. Fair enough, although it is a little late to state the argument, as this is the final round of the debate. It also has zero relevance to the title of this debate.My CON answer is NO. Eminent danger is irrelevant to how much a species has evolved - indeed, as humanity has evolved through the accumulation of knowledge, we have become not only more dangerous to other species around us, but to ourselves as well. One extremely easy example of this eminent danger caused by our own evolution is the presence of nuclear weapons, and the capacity of nuclear weapons to not only destroy all life on earth, but ourselves as well. I would rather state that evolution is a primary factor in causing "eminent danger [to] nip[] at our heals." CLOSING ARGUMENTI move to win by default because PRO did not have a cohesive argument until the final round. What has comprised the bulk of PRO's response in round #3 is an attempt to argue points I made while conjecturing as to what the main argument MIGHT be. PRO did eventually state his argument in clear terms at the end of the debate. However, he did not defend his position. Furthermore, his position has nothing to do with the title of this debate, nor does it have any clear relevance to his Round #1 comments, nor his Round #2 comments, nor his Round #3 comments.I thank fourthdancer for giving me the opportunity to participate in my first debate on this website. I also thank in advance the voters for sympathizing with my confusion.
Moving beyond talking...debating.

Well, I'm not sure why you don't understand. You post; "I don't know about what we are talking, arguing and debating, so I don't know how we would move beyond this step." But then you post; "I will make a second guess that you are PRO for the position that we move collectively instead of individually in whatever actions we choose to take before AI dominates our lives." So, it seems as though you do understand, somewhat at least. However, you argument lies in this; we are a democracy with inalienable rights and therefore a totalitarian existence is what I'm promoting. Well, I don't agree. A democracy is such: a mass casts their (inalienable right) vote and in turn, their governing body is given clear evidence in what direction the majority would like to head. Aside from the fact this process does not always work as intended, you have overlooked what we are -- first, before a governed body of whatever flavor dictates directional steering. We are a communal species. Directional steering fomented from any mass has never comes easily. History books burst at the seams with this near guarantee: masses don't move en-masse until eminent danger nips at their heals regardless of what dominating governing system is in place. Referred to as a revolt or revolution, this is actually our power 'amassed'. Now, my question for debate was: do you think this communal species has evolved yet to a place where we can ensure the direction we are lead is what we want without eminent danger nipping at our heals or not?
Moving beyond talking...debating.

Thanks for the attempts at clarification. I will assume you are PRO for this argument: "can we effectively move en-masse to become for once, the reigning dance partner in the Ageless Dance of Time...or not?" I confess, I don't know what the Ageless Dance of Time connotes, so I cannot argue this point. Also, I do not understand this portion of your argument: "move beyond talking, arguing, debating and onto unifying to actually effect the direction we are headed BEFORE Superintelligence gets here to completely rule our day." I don't know about what we are talking, arguing and debating, so I don't know how we would move beyond this step. I will make a second guess that you are PRO for the position that we move collectively instead of individually in whatever actions we choose to take before AI dominates our lives. Well, this is very hard to argue one way or another. All I will say is that I'm an advocate for enlightened self-interest, and given that SELF equates to my own person and whatever ownership rights are bestowed upon me by society at large, I will always have differing interests with other people, especially if what they own differs significantly from what I own. Given that each individual differs significantly from other individuals, I cannot advocate that all individuals act in a collective manner for any extended period of time. Democracies are built upon the inalienable rights of individuals, and totalitarian states are built upon the concept of government ownership of all productive assets, including people. Totalitarian societies would have a much easier time executing what you advocate.
Moving beyond talking...debating.

Aha! I did not know that part of the debate etiquette! No, actually the debate centers on whether you feel we, the mass, this freer than ever and eduacated people, can move beyond talking, arguing, debating and onto unifying to actually effect the direction we are headed BEFORE Superintelligence gets here to completely rule our day. I can see your confusion; I did not articulate well. This too, is my first debate on this forum. I am pro; I believe this is the adaptation bounce we are primed for...all we need is to do it. However, here's a tip if you want to argue this. Your best defense might be along the lines of how masses have always moved like sheep. Historically, we follow. Does that help?
My Case Against Miscegenation.

Since my opponent has forfeited the last round, I'll end the debate. During this debate a strong case has been made against miscegenation. Does a white man that gets together with a black women place himself at greater risk? Yes, because all the statistics would show that he's more likely to be killed by her. Does a white women place herself at greater risk? Yes, because all the evidence demonstrates that she is more likely to be killed by him than if she'd remained within her own race. These are stats that would be ignored at one's peril. Can we demonstrate that miscegenation with Africans exposes one to greater risk of HIV and STI's? Yes we can. The provided data clearly shows it to be the case. To dismiss or be ignorant to these facts would be like randomly taking pills and not even reading the label. I have shown how mixed race children often speak of identity issues. Are we also to dismiss that? We can easily see how if a people were to follow miscegenation on a grand scale then it would lead to the inevitable and eventual end of the race that were the World minority. To even create, invite or encourage the conditions in which this could happen(in whole or in part), is a fundamental tragedy and entirely malevolent. We have seen how miscegenation is something almost exclusively aimed at whites in majority white nations and we've seen how miscegenation is not commonly promoted in Africa, China, India, or anywhere else. Don't Jews need to diversify their gene pool by getting together with Africans? Don't the Japanese need to diversify their gene pool by getting together with Indians? Apparently not. Apparently it is whites and majority white countries that must diversify their gene pool - no one else. In closing - if you are European then miscegenation is a disaster for at both the macro and micro level and in both the short and long term. http://www.amazon.co.uk... http://www.sciencedirect.com... http://www.unc.edu...
My Case Against Miscegenation.

Brain size difference between races was a myth that was spread around by a scientist called J.P Rushton. Almost immediately, the scientific community disproved this and showed that Rushton had used outdated tools and techniques. Humans generally have the same brain size, and in the end it was shown that the difference appears in white males and african americans, brain size varies person to person. There is no significant difference per race. Another study found that in fact African americans have bigger brains http://www.africaresource.com.... So it is easy to come to a conclusion that the brain size average varies on the test group. Also, IQ is not directly linked to brain size. Only certain parts of the brain would directly affect IQ, and those are rarely found unchanged. If brain size affected IQ, humans would be one of the dumbest creatures on Earth. Most areas are linked to different athletic abilities. Whenever we really see a size difference, it is in parts of the brain to do with balance etc. Also, in a lot of countries, miscegenation is frowned upon. The mindset in those countries is against it. But then again, people who are against it are extremely prone to genetic diseases and the "purer" your blood, the worse it is. Just look at some statistics. Certain genetic diseases are ravaging those countries. Also, in countries like India or Israel, there is no call for miscegenation because their population is comprised of mostly people of their own culture. It is not necessary either, as these are majority populations. Europeans though, reside in countries where they themselves are outnumbered. Unless they want to breed with only members of their own race until they all die, it is necessary to at least open your mind to the idea. No one pushes you. It just shows it is a possibility, not something taboo.
My Case Against Miscegenation.

While a person may want to preserve their heritage, as I said before, it would make their people die out and be outbred by other people who are willing to go for different cultures. Historically, no group of people have kept their blood as "pure" as the Boers, also known as the Afrikaners. They refused to breed outside of their own race. The consequences? -Genetic Disorders of the blood skin and bones -sclerosteosis and lipoid proteinosis -Afrikaners, at a rate five times higher than Americans, have a genetic abnormality which causes familial hypercholesterolemia which can cause people to have heart attacks before they are 30 -tons of other side effects (It is one o the most genetically crippled races on Earth Other groups that had extremely high rates of familial hypercholesterolomia: Ashkenazi Jews, Lebanese Christians, French Canadians, and Finns. It coincides with groups who were bent on keeping their blood pure. On average groups such as these have a 30 times higher chance of getting FH Finnish people, a group bent on "preserving their heritage", have gotten a genetic syndrome exclusive to their people called FDH (Short for finnish disease heritage) and it was proven to be caused by a lack of genetic diversity. The science behind this is, a lot of people have messed up genes. They are inactive because there has to be two of the genes to cause the actual problem. This is the reason incest is not allowed. Brothers and sisters usually have the same messed up genes and them having a child causes all those bad genes to become activated, which is never good. In a population of people from the same heritage, people all have close ancestors. By this I mean 10-5 generations (Depending on the amount of people in the race) these genes traverse up to 20 generations. See the problem? IQ is hereditary, but even if both parents are stupid, the chid may be smart, and vice versa. Mixing with other races actually has a proven boost in IQ in a few studies. It depends on a situation. When a person is looking for love, it doesnt matter if the other is african american or european. There are dumb europeans and smart african americans, averages are not always applicable to the entire population. If IQ is a priority, and a European wants to also marry an african american, marry a smart african american. If someone doesnt want their child to be dumb, then dont marry a dumb person
Debate Shuffle

So this bloke is a self confessed "troll kingpin", in other words he has no life, because psychology tends to suggest that trolls are lonely and have unresolved personality issues. Nonetheless, I am here to win my return debate. So R2, so i'm a UK Liberal/ Centre Left, scored similar to Gandhi. I'm a bullet point things I believe in, n you can bullet point what u believe in, voters vote for the most convincing bullet points. -I understand that workers have a natural hatred towards the unemployment, but I also believe that everyone is fit to work, eg the disabled, or those with mental health issues like agoraphobia. -I am slightly homophobic and racist, but I don't openly discriminate against others, because that's prejudice. they can marry if they want - I believe in criminals deserve rehab and support instead of punishment (minor criminals not psycho serial killers) - Capitalism benefits the rich and robs the poor, so if you are not upper mid middle class, you are fucked for life. -the benefit system is manipulatable but necessary regardless. -Turn the other check (classic Gandhi), but play mind games. -Don't hate women unless they do you over -share and be humble, but also enforce constructive boundaries. etc Now after the troll completes this round, he'll need to comment n discuss what we will do in r3-4, in the comment sectionas mentioned. -
Debate Shuffle

This guy right here (Pro) is an impersonation account of another user and may well be banned by the end of this debate.The only reason I won't snitch, is that I get orgasms from dominating someone in a rap battle and can't wait for round 5.Wolf says round 2 is for something and round 1 isn't. Wolfy is a fool.If I don't say what my political compass is, he won't know how to angle his round 2 debate.I'm going to do the boy a favor, may he kiss me and have homosexual bliss (I am not assuming his gender, he is a very masculine wolf). Just a few mins while I fill out this moronic test. :)Here we go:https://www.politicalcompass.org...