BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Developed nations should not hold developing nations to the standards for environmental protection

First I would like to justify my stand against some of the points you posted. Developed nations have made d mistake of reckless exploitation of natural resources and indeed they are not preventing developing nations from doing the same for saving the planet. They have their own vested interests to be in the powerful state. But, by regulation, I understand a check on the usage of resources. A check means that the natural resources shall be used but not unfettered. This gives the developing nations an edge by coming at power by using their natural resources with their wisdom. Also, when I talk about natural resources, they are of two types..renewable and non renewable. Developing nations can learn from developed nations and focus more on the development of renewable natural resources which are in abundance and cause less pollution. That speaks a great deal about the check which can be put on the resources and the compliance with regulations too.
Wimen shud not hav wrights

Personallyy, I dont think that wimen shud hav wrights. They have done ABSOLUTLY NUTHING to hour cuntrie. No wimen is or hav bean president b4. Y do u tink that is?????? Im only 11.248 but i know tat in the futzre, peple wil no tat I am wright. VOT 4 TRUMPP!1!11111!11! HE WIL MAK MERICA GR8 AGIN!!11!
Pick your own debate - 1F

Thank you for instigating this debate, Skeptic. The three topics: 1. POLITICS President Barack Hussein Obama was the person most deserving of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Deserving - worthy of I would be CON. 2. SOCIETY The Church ought to be required by law to recognize all marriages equally, regardless of the genders of those involved. "The Church" means any religious institution that recognizes marriage as a religious institution. "By law" means by government. "Regardless of the genders of those involved" means that homosexual couples should not be discriminated against compared to heterosexuals when it comes to the actions of the Church. I would be CON. 3. SCIENCE The universe probably had a definite starting point in time. By definite starting point in time, I mean time suddenly starting, rather than having always been passing infinitely. Just ask if you need clarification. I would be PRO. Again, thank you, and good luck.
Pick your own debate - 1F

If you have participated or read any of these types of debates before, then this one should be no different. However, for those who haven't: ROUND 1: This obviously includes this opening introduction and rules. For my opponent, he/she will post 3 topics (clarify them if you could) he/she wishes to debate, and then post his/her position on each of the topics. Please try to add a mix of subjects. Have some deal with religion, others with politics, others with art, others with social issues, etc. ROUND 2-4: I will start my case by supporting or attacking one of three topics my opponent proposed. It should follow throughout as a normal 3-Round debate. *NOTE* - I realize that politics are almost undoubtedly tangled with social issues, but a somewhat cut between the two would be fine. By politics, I imagine topics such as what is the best political system, what role does the government play, economics, taxes, so on and so forth. By social issues, I imagine topics such as gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, so on and so forth. *NOTE* - Please put forth only controversial, or at least opinionated claims, for the topics. This should be pretty self-explanatory. If you have any questions, just leave it at the comments section. *NOTE* - The "1E" notation is for purely for browsing purposes. If there's any concerns or questions, leave it at the comments sections.
Questioning beliefs.

Thanks for accepting Tejretics. Anyway can you show more main stream beliefs cause I don't know half of what those words mean. My beliefs: Science:I believe in the Big Bang Theory, Global Warming, Global Warming being mostly man made, Video Games does not cause violence and Aliens do not exist. Religion:God exist, Gay Marriage is immoral, Abortion is immoral, Progressive Creationism is true and Prostitution is immoral. Questions: You are an atheist and believe in the big bang and I'm sure you know that the big bang just expanded the universe and not create it, so what created the universe?
Questioning beliefs.

Thanks, Clash, for challenging me to this debate. I wish you the best of luck. I'm not going to argue that your beliefs are "dumb", etc. since such terms are subjective; rather, I'll merely question your beliefs. Before that, of course, you'll have to clarify *what* your beliefs are. I'll clarify mine:Philosophy - existential nihilism, epistemic skepticism, moral relativism, agnostic atheism, eternalism, Sereian biological naturalismScience - RNA world hypothesis, zero-energy universe, Big Bang cosmology Note that the character limit is 8,000, so arguments will be shorter than expected.
Questioning beliefs.

Objectives: - Make your opponent's change their beliefs or prove that their belief is wrong. How it works: Okay so every round Pro and Con can ask three questions regarding every belief excluding political beliefs and the next round Pro and Con can post some follow up questions and argue that their opponent's belief is invalid or dumb Rules: No personal questions like do you believe that I'm your ugly? No cursing. No forfeiture. No personal attacks. You can only show up to 5 follow up questions. First round is acceptance. P.S I'm not a very good debater so don't expect much from me. I also want to apologize in advance for my arguments will most likely be posted in the last minutes and also for my grammatical errors. Thanks and good luck Con.
Should the death penalty be abolished

Your arguments are interesting as well and I will do my best to defend my case. Let's start with the issue of wrongful convictions. in 2013 there were 2001 people who escaped prison and murdered again. That is 2001 innocent lives gone. If we did make the death penalty cheaper by decreasing the time of the whole process, then it would increase the chance of innocent people being killed. However, in total 1450 people that have been executed could have been innocent. If we sped up the death penalty process, the percent of innocent people to be killed would most likely rise, but there is no exact way to know exactly how much it would rise. Even if it did rise, then it would most likely not go above 2001 people, as that is the number of escaped prisoners who murdered again in just one year. But it would seem that the number of wrongful convictions would really not change much either way. Even if there are sources that claim, either way, there is no way to no for sure as the future cannot be predicted correctly. Now to the issue of cost. Even though the death penalty is expensive we could make it cheaper. Here is the source that makes this claim. http://articles.baltimoresun.com... Now to the racial discrimination portion of it. Even if we abolished the death penalty, racial discrimination would not be happening in terms of the death penalty, but it would be happening in terms of life imprisonment. In other words, biased juries will be sentencing black people to life imprisonment instead of sentencing them to death. And honestly, rotting in prison for the rest of your life is really not much better than being put to death in a short quick manner. So in the end, racial discrimination will not end in those terms at all. I would like to thank my opponent for a great debate and would ask him to only post again as to finish the debate that way we each get two rounds to argue. Otherwise, you will have argued your points 3 times and I will have defended them only twice.
Should the death penalty be abolished

I do not necessarily disagree with my opponents points. There is a problem of discrimination. There is a problem of cost. There is a problem of wrongful convictions. But I disagree that these are problems inherent in the death penalty. In other words I do not believe that these problems are the fault of the death penalty itself. Let me start with his first point that the death penalty is expensive. Because the death penalty can sometimes take 20 years to complete the process, the cost is great. As a matter of fact, at one point executions in California were costing 30 million dollars. But this is not the fault of the death penalty. The actual execution is very cheap. But the reason the death penalty is so expensive is because of the judicial system. If we reformed the death penalty, then we could make it where there is one trial, and in that trial the jury decides whether to sentence the person to death or not. If this happened the death penalty would be so much more cheaper than life imprisonment that we would actually be saving money by using the death penalty. My opponents second point is that there is a racial discrimination. This isn't the fault of the death penalty, this is a problem with us as a country. If we don't discriminate against blacks and other races, then this problem won't be occurring. Even if we abolished the death penalty, racial discrimination will still be happening. It's not like abolishing the death penalty will cause racial discrimination to go away. The problem is us as a nation, not the death penalty. My opponents third point is that wrongful convictions occur. This is true, and no matter how we will reform the death penalty, this problem will still be occurring. But the same problem will be happening if we abolish the death penalty. Let's say that we sent all killers to life in prison. In the year 1998 6,500 prisoners escaped and murdered again. This is huge compared to the small amount of wrongful convictions. If we abolished the death penalty, the amount of innocent people killed will only go up. I look forward to your arguments :)
The existence of the Judeo-Christian God is impossible

TERMS Resolved: It is impossible for the Judeo-Christian God to exist. Rounds: 1. Acceptance only 2. Opening arguments 3. Clash 4. Closing arguments/clash The attributes of Od will be the same found within the Bible; as well the definition. If 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. Good luck! :-) Through this debate, I will prove that it is impossible for the Judeo-Christian God to exist because: -His attributes contradict itself; -Problem of non-belief; -Argument of Evil; -Problem of Biblical contradictions. Report this Argument Note that scripture does qualify as sources.
Television is the leading cause of violence in today's society.

I accept con's challenge and will prove that television is, in fact, the leading cause of violence in today's society. As I do not believe con has properly laid out definitions, I would like to clarify that "society" should be considered to be those demographics that particularly have issues with violence, such as youth in these United States. I would also like to clarify that "television" should be understood to mean all media that is most typically consumed via a television - that is, movies, television shows, news videos, and video games. If con wishes to expand or modify these definitions he is encouraged to do so and I will argue accordingly.
Nuclear Energy

This is going to be a simple Pro Nuclear Energy vs Con Nuclear Energy. No specific resolution, just the broad subject of using nuclear energy. Burden of Proof - The BoP falls equally on both debaters to support and defend their arguments while refuting their opponent's. For example, Con can focus on negative effects to the environment, safety issues, or better alternatives rendering Nuclear obsolete, but Con cannot just disagree with everything Pro puts up (and vise versa). I will go ahead and present some definitions. Unless Con finds these definitions to be abusive, they are to be accepted. If Con finds them abusive, Con is free to present alternative definitions, but then it will be up to the voters to agree if my definitions are abusive or not. Nuclear energy (as it pertains to this debate) - The gathering of energy from nuclear fission or nuclear fusion to use in commercial purposes (such as electricity). Nuclear fission - A nuclear reaction in which a heavy nucleus splits spontaneously or on impact with another particle, with the release of energy. [1] Nuclear fusion - A nuclear reaction in which atomic nuclei of low atomic number fuse to form a heavier nucleus with the release of energy. [2] Con may present any additional definitions that they choose and may start debating in their R1, however, they are also free to pass it back to me to start in my R2. Additional definitions may be added as needed throughout the entire debate. [1] https://www.google.com...= [2] https://www.google.com...=
Wealthy people are a minority in the U.S. and deserve protection from unfair discrimination.

The purpose of anti-discrimination laws is not to prevent discrimination against all minorities: after all, it is perfectly rational to refuse to hire a convicted pedophile to run a day care center. Instead, they are designed to prevent discrimination against groups that have historically been mistreated or discriminated against and whom there is no reason to treat differently. In legal terms, a law that singles out a "suspect group" that has been historically disadvantaged is subjected to "strict scrutiny," and must serve a "compelling state interest." Let's examine each of these components individually. First, do wealthy people compose a suspect group? It is true that they are a minority in the U.S., but then, so are white males, who have most certainly not been been targeted for discrimination, harassment, or bigotry. In fact, we see a strong bias--in laws and in culture--for the wealthy. Note, for example, the extreme value we place on wealth, and the status we give to the wealthy, regardless of their contributions to society. Note also the de facto legal privileges that are given to the wealthy: the ability to hire high-power lawyers to help them avoid prosecutions, law-suits, and taxes that ordinary Americans could never avoid, for instance. There is no way to argue that the wealthy are a "suspect group" deserving of protection. Second, let us examine whether progressive taxes serve a compelling state interest. The government provides many essential services for which it relies on tax revenue. There is, therefore, a compelling state interest in collecting taxes. Since a progressive tax scale inflicts the least amount of suffering (especially on the poor) of any tax system, it is therefore the best. Finally, indulge me as I establish a philosophical position. Wealth, in America, depends on laws. It depends on free public education, which provides an educated workforce; the system of laws that treats corporations as individuals, allowing them to enter into contracts; publicly financed roads and highways; publicly regulated airwaves; and the collective bargaining power of the U.S. government that helps to establish favorable trading conditions and tariffs. In short, the wealthy owe their success to the government. It is only fair and rational that they pay more to support the government. It is not discrimination.
Wealthy people are a minority in the U.S. and deserve protection from unfair discrimination.

It is wrong for the majority to single out a minority and treat them differently than the rest of society. We have rightly put all sorts of anti-discrimination legislation in place to ensure that minorities are treated equally as well as the rest of us. Unfortunately the crusade to ensure fairness ends abruptly when it comes to those the government considers affluent. They are taxed at a higher percentage then their fellow Americans and are constantly exploited as a source to pay for the mismanagement of our country's finances. Is discrimination really okay as long as it can be argued that the subjects of discrimination are able to tolerate it? As of yet no one has been successful in coming to their defense, or reconciling the blatant inconsistency in turning a blind eye to some types of discrimination and not others. Will the most productive of our society ever receive equal treatment under the law? They will most certainly always be in the minority. Will anyone be able to save them from the money-grubbing majority?
The Star-Spangled Banner Should Not Be Played at United States Sporting Events

The Star-Spangled Banner is a song whose lyrics were inspired from a battle of a war the United States was fighting in.(1) As the national anthem of the United States, the song is sanctioned by the federal government. The song thus carries with it a connotation of conflict, battle, war, military, and violent government victory(2). A lot of people might only go to sporting events for the experience. Once they experience first-hand the events are tedious and boring, they would not continue to attend them. That has been the case for me. There are so many interesting things to do other than to attend sporting events. Playing the national anthem at sporting events that are difficult for some, such as me, to attend gives the national anthem and the country a connotation that they are remote and difficult to access. When I mentioned a required playing of the national anthem at sporting events, I did not mean legally required. I may have meant a theoretically required playing. Nonetheless, playing the national anthem is required by some sporting associations' rules. The NFL and NHL (if a U.S. NHL team is playing) require the national anthem to be played.(3) Some states have laws that require The Star-Spangled Banner to be played in a respectful, regulated fashion. One such state is Massachusetts.(4) I reside in Massachusetts. According to Massachusetts General Laws chapter 264, section 9, the national anthem cannot be played as dance music.(4) Playing The Star-Spangled Banner just before festive, loud, obnoxious sporting events filled with alcohol and disrespect from spectators or sometimes even athletes themselves may not constitute dance music or a violation of the cited law, but it falls close. It seems more respect can be afforded to The Star-Spangled Banner and to the United States than what is afforded through those sporting events. Sources Cited: (1) https://en.wikipedia.org... (2) https://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://www.espn.com... (4) https://malegislature.gov...
The Star-Spangled Banner Should Not Be Played at United States Sporting Events

I'm glad that my opponent took the time to respond to my arguments. A lot of people have been forfeiting recently, so it's nice to be able to continue through a debate. I know this off-topic, but I just wanted to give that thanks to my opponent. I understand where my opponent is coming from in that the more the national anthem is played, the more dull it becomes. However, I disagree with this. While it may be less meaningful to some the more it is played, this is not a reason to stop playing it altogether. In my personal experience, whether I'm at a sporting event, school assemblies, or any other public gathering, I have never heard dull applause after the anthem was played. In other words, at every event I've been to, the audience has always applauded very fully and sound, showing that they are still supporting our national anthem. Again, this is just my personal experience, and of course I can not say that this applies to every case, but to me, this does show that playing the national anthem at public events has not become dull over the years past. I also do not think that playing the national anthem at sporting events suggests an ambiance of war, and I would like to ask my opponent to clarify why he feels this way. As my opponent has claimed, watching sporting events are often tedious and boring. While I can not necessary prove him wrong here in any way, as it is simply an opinion, I would like him to consider this: If people saw sporting evens as boring to watch, why would they be there in the first place? I honestly think that the people who went through the trouble of buying tickets and getting to the stadium are there because they want to be. Otherwise, they would most likely not go through the trouble to get there. That being said, I doubt that the national anthem would receive a boring connotation within that atmosphere. Therefore, the claim my opponent has made that playing the national anthem at sporting events takes away special meaning and respect is not the way I see it. I think it is a great way to continue to encourage respect for our country. I would like to add a little side note, and my opponent can take it with a grain of salt if he so chooses. Now, I don't know if the national anthem is REQUIRED at these events, but let's assume that it is for a minute. If this law was taken away, and it no longer was required to be played, do you think that sporting events would still put forth the singing of it? I personally think that they would still play the national anthem, because they want to honor their country, not because they have to. Just a thought. I would like to thank my opponent again for continuing this debate and for the respectful conduct he has had. I look forward to hearing his responses!
The Star-Spangled Banner Should Not Be Played at United States Sporting Events

The more often The Star-Spangled Banner is played, the more clichéd it will become, the less meaningful it will become, and the more tempted people will become to challenge and disrespect it and the United States. The Star-Spangled Banner would become like fast food, something that is common and that lacks elegance. It would be like that saying "familiarity breeds contempt."Playing the national anthem at sporting events, which are petty, suggests that the events are part of a battle or war, but in reality the sporting events and their outcomes are intended to be just the opposite, peacetime activities that don't advance our country socially, geographically, or militarily.Sporting events are often tedious to watch and boring. Proximity suggests association. With The Star-Spangled Banner being played at often tedious, boring events, people would be naturally led to apply a tedious, boring connotation to both The Star-Spangled Banner and the United States. The association between the country and its sporting events is bloated and improper.Paying respect to the people who have sacrificed their lives and their time for this country should be done in a proper way. A mandatory, scheduled integration of the national anthem into common sporting events takes away the special meaning and respect the song contributes to those who've sacrificed.I agree that playing the national anthem "shows overall respect for our country and its history," but I think in this case, too much respect is being shown. As a result, our country is being held back. Our progress and productivity is being stunted, as we keep reverting to the same unchanging song more times than is helpful. We should try to look backward less and forward more.