BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Odinism is better than Christianity (or any other Abrahamaic faith)

I would love to understand how you could believe that the belief in any given religion is superior to believing in any other. That is like saying watching basketball is far superior to watching baseball. It is completely subjective and up to the individual. I think your going to have a very hard time pleading your case here so I would like you to begin with some proof of this bold statement. I don"t t think you gave me any information to go off of to defend this claim so I will be patiently waiting your response. And you cannot have a "Belief" in "Faith" it is contradictory. You can believe in truths but not faith otherwise it"s s not faith it"s true. Thank you.
[Star Trek] The quarantine of Vagra II was uncalled for [Skin of Evil]

I'd like to start off by detailing what happened on Vagra II in a nutshell. Armus captures Troi and her pilot after their shuttle crashed on Vagra II. After the Enterprise arrives, they try to confront Armus to save their crewmates. One of these crewmates was Tasha Yar, the security officer. After Yar attempts to walk over to the shuttle, which is being blocked by Armus, Armus hits her with a blast of energy and she is killed. Yar was a bridge officer with high ranking. Armus clearly showed that he wasn't going to let anyone pass, but Yar walked past him without first being sure if it was safe. After all of this, Captain Picard beams down to the surface, and works on distracting Armus so that the Enterprise can beam out the two people in the shuttle. Then Picard beams up, orders the destruction of the shuttle with a photon torpedo, and declares the planet off-limits. Talking to the Captain, Armus says that even if he kills everyone, he will still be immortal and alone, being the only one on the planet. The Captain could've used this emotional state of Armus to try and convince him that if he stopped his violent behaviour, Starfleet could help him. First, I will state Starfleet Regulation 619 - . http://en.memory-alpha.org...The commanding officer must relieve themselves of command if their current mission leaves them emotionally compromised and unable to make rational decisions. Crewmembers aboard the Enterprise have been killed before, but Picard never expressed this much anger at their deaths. Armus was the result of a procedure by an unknown race, which brought out all the negative atributes within them. The resulting substance took the form of a black, viscous liquid. This liquid, which was Armus, was rejected by that race and they abandoned him on the uninhabited, remote planet of Vagra II. Since Armus was the product of experiments, Starfleet could've tried to approach him again. Starfleet was founded on the principle "to seek out life. " And Armus was, life, that could've been studied, and his state of anger and sadism could've been cured.
[Star Trek] The quarantine of Vagra II was uncalled for [Skin of Evil]

I will be arguing that the quarintine of Vagra II and the isolation of the creature Armus was unnecessary, and a decision taken too quickly without proper thought. Series - The Next GenerationEpisode - Skin of Evil . http://en.memory-alpha.org...(episode)Main character I'm referring to - Armus . http://en.memory-alpha.org...I'm hoping to get a good, fun, Star Trek debate out of this, and confront my concern for Armus, which is something I've been thinking about way too much recently.
Marriage Rights for LGBT in the US

Adam, I will use this round to respond to your points, in three separate areas.1. You stated “To start, there should be a fair vote on what the 'role' happens to be for the gov'ts role in marriage, this a battle that the people should be determined to help fight, not small special interests groups.”The fair vote you addressed has occurred in 35 separate States, In 32 of those 35, the voters have voted directly, often overwhelmingly voting against gay marriage. (source Wikipedia “Same Sex Marriage in the United States”)2. Adam, you said “ Procreation is an illogical point to argue, if the rare possibility came along that a dis proportionate amount of the population was homosexual, the gov't could simply force male citizens to donate their sperm once or twice a year so that women can be parents, but it is illogical to claim that just because gay marriage is recognized, more people will become gay/homosexual, there might be a few closet homosexuals, but not enough to create a population shortage, once there aren't enough heterosexual people on Earth to reproduce (we are already overpopulated), you may use this argument, but I doubt it will EVER happen in my lifetime, or my great great great grandchild's lifetime, or his great grandchild's lifetime.”Adam, I am confused, I never mentioned under population or over population, sperm, or gay marriage creating homosexuals. Your descendants and my descendants will be around to debate each other hundreds of years from now. Since I never made these arguments I do not know where to start, so I won’t.3. Adam you said, “I do get your point in that the gov't will have to expand their services to accommodate the LGBT group, but this logic is also applicable to when the gov't had to make education fair for all races, of course it costed more when the gov't had to actually give minority children fair schooling, but morality should always win over a few bucks, if you disagree with this, we have nothing left to argue about and I would already win in my opinion.”I appreciate your passion on this issue, you obviously feel strongly. I feel this is a good opportunity to make the point. that just because someone is opposed to gay marriage, whether it be on the basis of the role of Government, or for Religious, or moral reasons, does not mean they are homophobic, or hate gay people. I do not. Some may, but the large majority may just see the issue differently then you. I think it is entirely possible my great, great, great grandson may favor gay rights, while yours may be against. Or, perhaps, they will both be opposed to gay rights, or maybe they will be lovers. I guess we will never know for sure.
Marriage Rights for LGBT in the US

I will start by attempting to refute your arguments in 1. To start, there should be a fair vote on what the 'role' happens to be for the gov'ts role in marriage, this a battle that the people should be determined to help fight, not small special interests groups. -I will argue procreation in the 2nd section, although you cite it in the 1st. Also, when you quoted "Lannon 13", I realized he, and you both have some legitimate points, but I also agree that the gov't should not discriminate and only recognize monogamous groups, they allow you to marry at virtually any age with a parent's consent, once you are 18 you can marry. So I don't get your point there, of course a parent should have a say in if their child (not adult until 18) gets married, that is nothing more then basic logic in my opinion. My argument still stands that until monetary benefits are given to homosexual couples, heterosexual couples should not get them either, this is monetary discrimination and bigotry in policy. 2. Procreation is an illogical point to argue, if the rare possibility came along that a dis proportionate amount of the population was homosexual, the gov't could simply force male citizens to donate their sperm once or twice a year so that women can be parents, but it is illogical to claim that just because gay marriage is recognized, more people will become gay/homosexual, there might be a few closet homosexuals, but not enough to create a population shortage, once there aren't enough heterosexual people on Earth to reproduce (we are already overpopulated), you may use this argument, but I doubt it will EVER happen in my lifetime, or my great great great grandchild's lifetime, or his great grandchild's lifetime. 3. I get your point in that my original argument is flawed, I will adapt it since I think it was half my fault for leaving it too open to interpretation and half your fault for (either intentionally or unintentionally) mis interpreting it. I do get your point in that the gov't will have to expand their services to accommodate the LGBT group, but this logic is also applicable to when the gov't had to make education fair for all races, of course it costed more when the gov't had to actually give minority children fair schooling, but morality should always win over a few bucks, if you disagree with this, we have nothing left to argue about and I would already win in my opinion. On to round 3.
Marriage Rights for LGBT in the US

I will start by replying to your argument that refusing to expand the definition of marriage actually decreases the size of gov't. Any time you have to enforce something, you are increasing the gov't, because you need tax payer money to enforce it. Disallowing gay marriage is another burden to the tax payers, primarily because the LGBT people's aren't getting the tax exemptions they should be getting for being married. My main argument still stands that the gov't can make resolutions all they want on the definition of marriage, I don't care how bigoted they are, but once it effects fair taxation and policy, it becomes a technical issue, does it not? It's sort of like, I don't care if someone is a closet racist or anti feminist (Todd Akin), but if it shows in his policy, or his aims to change/maintain policy, it becomes an issue. I believe that if the definition of marriage is going to effect fair taxation policy, then the gov't has no business defining what marriage is, if they stopped tax exemptions for ALL married couples, I would deem it fair. I believe that the government has no right to define anything or make any resolutions that effect policy, because that does indeed increase the scope of government.
Marriage Rights for LGBT in the US

Thank you for your offer to debate. I accept. Since my debate opponent used round 1 to lay out his basic argument, in fairness to my opponent, I will limit my round 1 arguments to a preview of my basic argument. As I have indicated in other DDO forums, my opinion on gay marriage has evolved. It is the first issue that I researched when I joined DDO. I read many of the debates on gay marriage, and carefully considered both sides. The more I read, the more I evolved to being strongly opposed to expanding the definition of marriage. I was particularly impressed with the arguments of the DDO members, who now are listed on as my friends on my profile page (you know who you are). As I read and was influenced by the content of their arguments, I requested their friendships, and all accepted. My main argument against expanding the definition of marriage, has to do with the size and scope of Government, and the limited role Government should have. Surprisingly, my debate opponent is attempting to use the same small Government argument to suggest that Government should expand the definition of marriage.
Marriage Rights for LGBT in the US

Here are my views -I am conservative, meaning I want the gov't to intervene in American's lives as least a possible (While still functioning as a gov't) - Unlike most of my right wing counterparts, I support gay marriage, primarily for the purpose stated above, I may be uncomfortable with it, but it should not be my business whether a man or woman marry. - While the definition of marriage may only include man and woman, tax exemptions are given to married couples, therefore not allowing the LGBT group to marry is monetary discrimination. - Religion is not logical to include in this argument because a specific religion, or creationism in general does not represent everyone's views and due to secularism is illogical to include.
Marriage Rights for LGBT in the US

Since this is the final round, I wish to briefly address the debate itself, and then extend my gratitude to the those who got us here. On the debate itself, although passionate in his views, I do not believe that Adam was able to show that gay marriage would reduce the size and scope of Government. I am confident I presented my arguments against gay marriage with clarity, logic, and hopefully some humor. I ask for a con vote. As for my gratitude. First, I wish to express my appreciation to my profile page friends. The people who appear as my friends are those whose arguments in debates and forums were compelling and convincing, and backed up with logic and conviction. If one of the purposes of DDO is to sway people with the power of your arguments, you succeeded with me. Also, a special note of appreciation to Garret, who along with Adam kept my thread “Lets leave gay giraffes alone” alive, which I focused on this debate. I did not want the giraffes to be a casualty of my attention being elsewhere.And finally to Adam, my opponent in this debate. Adam proved to be an passionate advocate for his point of view. It is hard debating Adam, when he is so damn likable. For both Adam and I this was our first debate, and as they say “you never forget your first”. Like Adam, I enjoy hearing the views of people I may disagree with on an issue, and I happily welcome him as my newest DDO friend Thanks Adam.
Marriage Rights for LGBT in the US

Considering this is the last round, I will probably spend quite a bit of my time formulating my final rebuttal, the only downside to starting the debate is that you then have to let the opposition get the last word in, lol. Anyways, I will address your points and then make a conclusion statement. 1. Your point is technically void because it has been found unconstitutional multiple times for an act to be passed that prohibits the federal gov't from passing a mandate that forces same sex marriage. " The provision of DOMA forbidding the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages has been found unconstitutional in eight federal courts, including two federal appeals courts. Five of these cases are pending review by the Supreme Court." Same sex marriage wikipedia 2. Also, I was just further elaborating on why using procreation as an argument is illogical, since we only have four rounds I had to make assumptions as to why you think procreation is a feasible argument, I assume those are the reasons you back it, (under population, over population, etc.). 3. You and I seem to share the same sentiments in every issue except this one. I agree that if a state does not want to recognize LGBT married couples, that is their business. I don't even mind if they refuse them marriage certificates, the US may keep denying LGBT couples marriage certificates, that isn't even bigoted. What is bigoted and is obvious discrimination is giving Heterosexual married couples monetary benefits, but then denying it to others. This is monetary discrimination, which directly contradicts everything this nation stands for. If the gov't doesn't want to intervene directly on the issue, then that is their loss (of once again failing uphold American values), but they at least have to give no monetary benefits for marriage to any group, once they do this I will be able to spend more time debating on truly important things like economics and foreign policy, :P. Anyways, It has been a pleasure debating with you, I will send you a friends request and I look forward to debating in the future on other issues if you are up for it, or when we have similar values to defend them alongside each other. I never always surround myself with like-minded people, I am always interested in hearing what the opposition has to say (of course you will never change your mind on something if you never hear the opposing view), have a good night (or day when you read this), and I hope to stay in contact!
President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the US's best interest

To reiterate, the war in Afghanistan is and will be for some time, a never ending war. The addition of more troops won't secure a "victory" nor will it secure "stability." It will however secure segregation among the various ethnic groups (Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara and so on). And it will secure bloodshed, both for American and Afghan soldiers. Like I said in my previous argument, my opponent's argument is full of holes as it only includes opinion. If my opponent were to source some of her claims, it would make her argument more credible. However, since she has not, her argument isn't credible and therefore irrelevant.
President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the US's best interest

Well, for one to believe that a victory in Afghanistan is still possible for the U.S is irrational in and of itself. The proposed withdrawal date of July 2011 is only the beginning and not the end of a U.S withdrawal. The U.S, will remain in the country for years to come. "We have strategic interests in South Asia that should not be measured in terms of finite times," said Gen. James L. Jones, the president's national security adviser, speaking on CNN's "State of the Union." "We're going to be in the region for a long time." http://www.nytimes.com... For Afghanistan to become stable, the U.S must adequately train the Afghan forces and they could accomplish that with the troops that are already present in the country. At this point, there is more or less 75,000 troops on the ground. With this number, the U.S could adequately train the Afghan forces and subsequently transfer responsibility to them. "Our third contention is that the troop buildup will provide business opportunities throughout the United States, which will in turn, stimulate our economy, just look at the historical evidence behind this, especially World War II. In addition to this, the Chicago Tribune reported business opportunities will be abundant in areas like Phoenix." Well, the major banks have or will be paying back the Treasury Department early next year, this stimulating the economy. Do we really need more bloodshed (whether American or Afghan) to stimulate "places like Phoenix." The only business opportunities that are being provided because of this war is defense. Defense to make missiles to kill both Americans and Afghans. So are we really helping ourselves or our allies? "Our fourth contention is that all other options are illogical." I assume that's your opinion, as you haven't referenced any source. Throughout your entire argument, you have made these statements like "In addition to this, the Chicago Tribune reported business opportunities will be abundant in areas like Phoenix;" "My first contention is that the troop increase is in the United States' best interest because it will not only give us an advantage in the Afghanistan conflict, but it will eventually, help the country become stable. For Afghanistan to become stabilized, It is imperative that the United States call for more troops." My opponents argument is full of holes because it is full of opinion. He states how its in the U.S' best interest because "not only does it give us an advantage but it will help the country become stable." This is opinion because he hasn't referenced ANYTHING and therefore his entire argument is flawed and has been discredited by me.
President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the US's best interest

Please accept :) I'd like to start off by saying I'm not going to go into too deep of detail, I'd like the debate to be based on logic as well as evidence. Basically, the troop increase in Afghanistan is in the United States best interest because it is essential to the protection of our country, and history has shown us it will work. My first contention is that the troop increase is in the United States' best interest because it will not only give us an advantage in the Afghanistan conflict, but it will eventually, help the country become stable. For Afghanistan to become stabilized, It is imperative that the United States call for more troops. Essentially, more troops equates to victory, and if this crucial piece of the puzzle continues to remain unaddressed, our soldiers will stay on their merry-round of driving insurgents out, only to lose the area again because of the inadequate number of troops. Secondly, the troop surge will help our foreign policy as more than 30 countries including Canada,Britain, Australia, Greece, Sweden, the Netherlands, Estonia, Macedonia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Italy, India, Germany, Poland, Japan, France, and China all support Obama's plan. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen stated, "There is a broad consensus in the alliance we must stand together and we will support the United States. It is an alliance mission." Our third contention is that the troop buildup will provide business opportunities throughout the United States, which will in turn, stimulate our economy, just look at the historical evidence behind this, especially World War II. In addition to this, the Chicago Tribune reported business opportunities will be abundant in areas like Phoenix. Our fourth contention is that all other options are illogical. To completely pull out means we have both surrendered and wasted our money, to keep adding troops in insignificant amounts has not been working, and any other plans are irrelevant to the debate.
Posting links should be against the rules.

I have no issue with citing your source. If they were used in debates for that purpose, but they seldom are. In general they are used as part of an argument. When I see them it is ussually "read this link, my argument is whatever it says." Very seldom do you see, "here is my argument, this backs it up." If anything there should at least be a disclaimer stating "you should not use any linked data in your judgement." In a real debate, you can only use as much evidence as you have time to read; here you should only be able to use as much evidence as you are able to type under the character limit.
Posting links should be against the rules.

The act of posting a link is usually not for the purpose of extending someone's argument. It is to give the argument credibility. If people just make arguments or use statistics and do not state the source, the argument has less credibility. Even if they do say "according to ", voters will have a very hard time finding that information. However if a link is posted, the voters can quickly view the source. You said that the sites might be propaganda. If this is the case, the voter will almost always realize this. Most people can distinguish between CNN or Fox News and some wacko Idea Farm site. Also even if links cannot be posted, people will just post the URL of the site. The bottom line is: Links don't hurt debates, they help them.
Population growth needs to be controlled

Although my opponent forfeited the previous round I will summarise my points in this closing statement. Space on this planet is limited as are resources. As the population grows we need more resources to survive in the way to which we are accustomed, as more nations become developed they too increase their demand for resources. We need space to farm and mine these resources, especially food, and as the population growth requires more space too we will eventually reach a point where we do not have space for everyone and everything we need to survive. If we watch a charity event about third world countries and the number of people dying of starvation or disease we are no doubt upset. Imagine this in the USA or Western Europe. Huge numbers of humans will lose their lives due to famine or war when space and resources become very limited. Why should we be able to affect death rates without taking the time to control other factors such as birth rate in order to strike a balance? Nature's way of controlling population size will famine and disease. We should be intelligent enough to see the effect of our advancements and modify our behaviour to compensate. Thank you for taking the time to read this debate.