BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A 'New World Order' would have a positive impact on the well-being of humanity.

To clarify, I am arguing that an international governing agency of some sort would have a positive impact on the well-being of humanity. By "international governing agency", I mean something more powerful than the UN. Defining terms below.'New World Order' - A metaphor. This term means some governing body that has objective international authority. This does not necessarily include all countries, but enough countries such that the power is unrivaled in strength and powerful enough to cause direct change.positive impact - Self explanatory. If something has a positive impact on an agent, the agent is better off for it in the end, on balance.humanity - The whole of mankind.well-being - A state characterised by happiness, health, prosperity and productivity, on balance. Rules:1. Definition are non-negotiable and are accepted as is. Clarifications are to be made in the comment section prior to the debate. Acceptance of debate without clarification is equivalent to accepting definitions provided.2. No semantic arguments. You are to argue the obvious counter-point. Unique arguments are encouraged. Obviously semantic and non-constructive arguments are not encouraged and will result in an immediate loss.3. Burden of proof is shared. Since pro can't objectively prove this point should stand and since con can't objectively prove it shouldn't, the more compelling argument wins.Rounds:R1: Acceptance. Any definitions clarified in comments and accepted by me should be mentioned by Con.R2: Arguments. No rebuttals. Don't address the opponent's arguments.R3: Rebuttals. New arguments allowed.R4: Rebuttals. No new arguments. Only clarifications.R5: Closing remarks. No new arguments. You can address opponent's arguments, but focus on making your point.
This house supports the creation of a pet licence, hard to obtain and based on competence.

Licence would be affordable, about "100, which would go to pet sanctuaries (kennels, Cat houses etc.). Cheaper for struggling families.All pets considered.Things such as criminal backgrounds would be considered, any animal abuse would cause a life-time ban. Houses would be checked for suitability-for example having a Husky in a small flat and a job that means your away most days would be cause for concern.Interviews concerned with the care of the animal would also be a hurdle to overcome.Round 1 isn't acceptance. You must everything 1 round ahead of me. Round1: arguments (you) Round2: arguments (me) rebuttals (you)Round3: rebuttals (me) why voters should vote for you (you)
paintball being banned in the U.S.

I shall define several words and I ask that my opponent notify me in the next round if he does not agree. paintball- A game in which players on one team seek to eliminate those on an opposing team by marking them with a water-soluble dye shot in capsules from air guns banned- not tolerated, prohibited by law 1. Paintballs have been known be used for vandalism (shooting car windows, houses) 2. The hard shells of the paintballs can cause serious injury.
Agnosticism makes no sense

agnosticism is the belief that because there's no evidence that God exists, nor is there evidence or reason to believe he doesn't exist, it is therefore safer to take neither side and conclude that it cannot be known whether or not he exists. ironically, this is most likely not applied to all phenomenon. For example, if I were to ask you if you believe that Santa Claus exists and you say no, that would conflict with your reasoning with the supernatural. furthermore,no evidence can be given for an immaterial being. however, this does not completely rule out the possibility that he exists as he can still act and prove to you that he is God. you cannot prove that humans exist either, it simply an assumption based on experience. If that's the case, you base knowledge on experience and not necessarily on science. With all of the things that are not known (planets, stars, etc.), you would then have to say that you are uncertain they exist.
Agnosticism makes no sense

You commit the fallacy of circular reasoning: 1, There is no such thing as absolute truth 2. You say that we cannot be certain of absolute truth 3. Therefore, that implies that absolute truth can't be found You just admitted that agnosticism is uncertain of itself which is why it makes no sense. 1. Agnosticism is not a theory, it's a system of belief. Agnosticism according to Wiki is a claim that absolute truth such as God is unknown. Scientific theory according to wiki is a substantiated explanation of the natural world incorporating facts and tested hypotheses. I'm not a gnostic, so it doesn't apply to me. You claim that anyone who believes in God (absolute truth) is close-minded but on the contrary, your closing your own mind in rejecting absolute truth. No matter what I show you on God, you won'tacc eptit bec ause it's absolute. It is better to have truth value and claim its absolute than to question everything. You claim that the agnostic bases his evidence on probability, but not once in this debate did you mention your mathematical calculations on how you know that God "probably " doesn't exist, so you fail to follow your own rules. As a Christian, I'm not concerned with being gnostic or agnostic. I don't concern myself with being all knowing and disproving every single religion out there. I'm concerned about what I have been revealed. You claim that gnostics could be wrong about their beliefs, but you as an agnostic could be just as wrong about yours. Science isn't concerned with proving the existence of natural things, but how the world works. Thus, you assume that stars exist without scientific evidence. By that, you somehow "know " that they exist. Your welcome to show me one scientific study on the existence of stars. As for the prayer study, the claim "prayer works " makes no sense because prayer is communication with the divine. To attribute the effects of prayer to purely natural causes would becommiting the masked man fallacy. Just because their prayers were not answered doesn't mean God doesn't answer prayer. You can pray and validate the power of prayer for yourself. Again I don't claim to have evidence for God, but since you imply that you canexpl ain it through natural means, I challenge you to go back in time and explain using science how the experience in my mind is not God. As we have seen, agnosticism makes no sense because of these reasons. I rest my case. Thanks for this debate.
Legal Driving Age Should Not Be 14

Many people have argued that the driving age should be lowered to ages as low as fourteen-years-old, however, due to their immaturity, underdeveloped minds, and the lethal consequences they face, the legal driving age should not be fourteen. Adolescents are immature, while some may be more mature than others, it does not change the fact that most teenagers are immature. For example, according to Guardchild, a software company, in a survey they did within the past 10 years,"56% of teenagers admit to talking on their phone while driving and 13% admit to texting while driving". To further support the claim, in the same survey done by Guardchild, "21% of fatal car crashes involving teenagers between 16 and 19 were the result of phone usage. This result has been expected to grow as much as 4% every year". With the rates of teenage phone usage while driving and fatal car crashes already so high, and expecting to increase every year, these rates are likely to be even higher if the legal driving age was reduced. Now that death rates have been mentioned, this leads into the next claim, the lethal consequences. According to Allstate, in an article they published in 2012, driving accidents are the leading cause of death for people under the age of 14, with more than 4,000 deaths every year. Even worse is that the younger the driver, the higher the risk of them getting in a fatal accident is. This is supported by a list published by CBS News on the most dangerous states for teen drivers, South Dakota, which has the lowest age to get a restricted licence, at 14 and 6 month, has a teen driver death rate 149% higher than the national average. On the other hand, according to WalletHub's Top 10 Best & Worst States for Teen Drivers, New Jersey, which has the highest age to get a restricted licence at age 17, is ranked within the top 10 best states for teen drivers. Finally, adolescents' brains are not as developed as the brain of an adult. According to the Medical Center at Rochester University, the brain is not fully developed until the age of 25. The Medical Center at Rochester University also stated that adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgement and considers long-term effects, while teenagers think with the amygdala, the emotional part of the brain. With adolescents more likely to be emotional and make irrational and sudden decisions based on emotion, giving them a position behind the wheel would not be foolish, but dangerous as well https://www.guardchild.com... https://blog.allstate.com... https://www.cbsnews.com... https://wallethub.com... https://www.urmc.rochester.edu...
The Nazis were not racist (or they were racist against white Nordics)

Let's beginI will start with a picture.This is a picture of Jesse Owens and Luz Long. Luz Long was a member of not just the German team in the Olympics. He was part of the Nazi team. He participated in the Nazi olympics. He helped Owens succeed. It's not a coincidence that we was a support the Reich (and their allies in Italy, the Fascists). http://upload.wikimedia.org...Here is a picture of Ludwig along with Owens and a member who played for Japan, also Germany's ally.The audience is giving an applaud. Now for the sake of historical commentary, let's compare this to what would have happened in, say, Britian, Sweden, Denmark, or the USA. Blacks who came to the countries were treating with hatred and hostility. Teams who played in the USA that had blacks were scoffed at by the audience who rooted for the whites (Nordics in reality)-only team.Here's a more personal picture of the two to make it more convincinghttp://upload.wikimedia.org...That doesn't look like the picture of someone who's racist against blacks now, does it?Hitler invaded Denmark because Denmark allied themselves with Britain (both of whom, not coincidently are brutal colonial powers)Taken from http://schoolworkhelper.net... "Britain and France discussed sending troops to occupy Denmark and Norway" "Hitler viewed it as a direct threat to Germany’s economy and decided to act" Does that sound like a man who loves the Nordics? I don't think so. See I believe that we have a nation of understandard students writing our history books. It's truly scary and embarassing. See it was the KKK who espouced Nordic beliefs, not the Nazis. http://3.bp.blogspot.com...Here's an ad in which he attacks the KKKI rest my case for this round
The Nazis were not racist (or they were racist against white Nordics)

Challenge accepted. And I know that the first round isn't for arguments, but I'd just like to mention the fact that the title of the debate contradicts itself, as it says that Nazis were not racist, except for when they were racist. However, I get the meaning behind the title, so I will not be using this as an argument. As the Germans say, bringen es auf (bring it on).
government funded social programs

"capitalism |ˈkapətlˌizəm| noun an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." welfare |ˈwelˌfe(ə)r| noun: (leaving out the nonpolitical context stuff.) statutory (read state) procedure designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need : the protection of rights to education, housing, and welfare. National health care (not in dictionary I'm afraid, use wikipedia for this one under "universal": is the result of government programs intended to ensure that all citizens, and sometimes permanent residents, of a governmental region have free or subsidized access to most types of health care. Etc. Do I have to reduce it all to symbolic language and show you the contradictions? You are not a capitalist. " I am a capitalist and i favor all of this for a reason, because people have become dependent on the government for their handouts, if you take them away, what do they do, they suffer. Roosevelt gave massive handouts during the depression, which made the people dependent on them and prolonged the suffering, they didn't have the initive to go help themselevs when they got a check from uncle sam. " The answer to an evil is not to continue it, but to abolish it when the situation is ripe. Dependence is not created by the government alone, it is created by unconditional cooperation with the government. Those who have become dependent are complicit in Roosevelt's crimes. Their suffering is not a license to use of my money by way of taxes. Need is not a claim on the unearned. Of course, economics tells us in the long run they will NOT suffer as a result, and indeed will suffer if the programs continue. But what of it? Even if it were somehow true that the masses benefit from government interference despite all evidence to the contrary, it would be no excuse. Justice does not relent just because the guilty aren't pleased when thinking of it. "and deep down, i don't favor the stimulus package because i know that people will still spend beyond their means, running up credit card debt and taking out more loans" Then why did you explicitly support the stimulus package in the comment chain in question? Are you a Straussian, to hold multiple contradictory positions on the same issues as expediency demands?
government funded social programs

this was your response to one of my comments let's see here, a capitalist eh? You favor welfare. You favor social security, you favor "social programs," you favor national health care, you favor medicaid and medicare, you favor minimum wage, you favor campaign finance reform, and this on top of your stimulus package. You can have the label "conservative," of the old world variety or theocrat variety, but don't you dare call yourself a capitalist. You are not in the slightest. I am a capitalist and i favor all of this for a reason, because people have become dependent on the government for their handouts, if you take them away, what do they do, they suffer. Roosevelt gave massive handouts during the depression, which made the people dependent on them and prolonged the suffering, they didn't have the initive to go help themselevs when they got a check from uncle sam. and deep down, i don't favor the stimulus package because i know that people will still spend beyond their means, running up credit card debt and taking out more loans
Funniest Blond Jokes

[1] A blond wasn't using her electric toothbrush. I asked her why and she said "I don't have electric teeth".[2] I asked a blond what she wanted to be when she grew up. She replied "a midget".[3] A blond told me she fell out of a hole. I told her it was impossible. She replied "Well, I didn't know that at the time!".[4] My blond cousin came up to me the other day and said "I CAN SEE DEAD PEOPLE". I said "That would make sense, we are at a funeral".[5] A blond buys a self-help book "How to read books before eating them first". It doesn't work.[6] A blond said to me that she's part of the neighbourhood watch. Apparently she's the minute hand.All jokes were written by me, KingDebater.
Mario is better than Sonic.

Sonic only has to charge up some of the time. It takes like 2 seconds and mario so slow that it would take him a week just to make it to Sonic. Using a fireball still is unimpressive since mario needs items in order to do it. Once sonic hits mario once, mario either loses his power to shoot fire, fly, or he turns into a little guy. Sonic is always the same size and doesn't need any little flower to use his power. Also, fighting a bunch of scientist's robots is way cooler than fighting a bunch of dead dinosaurs. They don't even do anything. Mario jumps on them and they die. Wowwww, that sounds much cooler than watching sonic tear through a bunch of robots creating explosions left and right. Besides that, dinosaurs have been in lots of games too. So you can't say that about fighting robots since there are just as many games with dinosaurs too.
Mario is better than Sonic.

Well doesn't sonic have to warm up before he can attack? By then mario would have jumped on him, threw a fire ball and ran before he even attacked! When it comes to enemies Mario is still stronger because he has to fight a Dinosaure and sonic has to fight a Docter. If i walked down the street and said to somebody "Hey i just fough a huge dinosaure with spikes coming out of there back" they will fist say "Where did you find a dinosuare?" then they would be like "Sweet", but if you say you fough a doctor with robots they would say "Mostly everyone has already done that!" Also Mario has Yoshi and every body know Yoshi is sweet!
Mario is better than Sonic.

Mario couldn't hit sonic with a fireball, sonic's too quick for mario. Mario is still weaker since he has almost no natural powers except for his jump ability. When it comes to enemies fighting each other. Bowser may be bigger and cooler looking, but it does not mean he is stronger. Eggman has armies of robots that sonic has to fight through. Mario just has to fight through the koopas and jump on their heads. So Sonic is way stonger since he isn't a little fatty that jumps on his enemies.
Mario is better than Sonic.

But if sonic was coming after mario then Mario could throw a fire ball hit him and he would burn to death! Then Mario would fly away and live happily ever after! Also, Mario has to fight a dinosaure thing (Bowser) and all Sonic has to fight is Dr. Eggman (messed up scinetist). So since Mario has to fight Bowser and Sonic has to fight a Dr. Eggman, Mario is clearly stronger and cooler than Sonic!
The DDO debating system is fair

My argument will be centered around 3 contentions. Allowing the contender to speak last is fair because...: C1. It allows both opponents the same amount of speech. (1)1. In every conversation, every argument, every debate, and every moment of human interaction someone will always speak last, unless two people speak at the same time, then ending the conversation. On a turn based online debate, this logic is even greater observed. Since it is inevitable that one person will speak last, it becomes a question of who that will be. Both debaters should get the same amount of turns and speech (of course we all agree on that). So, the only way that is possible is if the contender speaks last. If the debate begins with the instigator, in order for both people to get equal chances to speak, it must end with the contender. No matter how many rounds there are, this law is true. Therefore, it is an act of FAIRNESS to allow the contender to speak last, rather than the unfairness my opponent perceives.C2. If a voter sides with whoever speaks last, then HE is unfair and not the system itself. 1. The system, again, allows both debators equal opportunities to speak. If a voter has a tendency to be more convinced by whomever he heard last, then that is his flaw. The debate system cannot be blamed for the wrong and unjust decisions of voters.C3. There is usually nothing very convincing in final rounds1. The final round is for refutation only. If the instigator's closing arguments were so weak that the contender could easily dismantle them and leave that lasting victory impression on the readers, then that is the fault of the instigator for being so inept. In any debate containing over 3 rounds, most powerful points would be exhausted by the final round. If someone withholds his powerful points until the final round, those points will be disregarded by fair voters and the person would lose conduct points. Basically, there is no advantage for speaking last unless an unfair voter, or unskilled instigator makes it an advantage. The system of debating in and of itself is fair. (2)Sources1. This debate itself. 2. Logical thinking.
Luke Skywalker is an evil character who practices witchcraft.

Key Concessions by Pro"Atheists can still do good"Pro essentially admitted in R4 that Atheists can be moral. This means that nonbelief=/=someone evil. If I can prove Luke to be moral, he is not evil and therefore Con wins the debate.The Force is not inconsistent with the First Commandment.This one was more implicit, but Pro did so twice. The translation of the First Commandment used by Pro had a key word that make this a concession.-"gods" the Force is not a god, but rather an entity, which is real in the Star Wars reality. The Jedi, Luke included, do not worship the Force, but rather recognize that it is a real, existing entity.Impact: Belief in the Force does not make Luke evil.Few quick defenses of R3 arguments.Skywalker never "summon[ed] a dead spirit" so Pro's analysis of Skywalker's witchcraft is nonsensical."...you forget God created all humans and the Earth. God existed before time, so no matter how far back the Star Wars series is supposed to be, God will have existed first. Let's say the Star Wars series is supposed to be one quadrillion years before Earth. God will still have existed before the series." -StupidapeThis is not warranted, but for fun and games I'll momentarily assume this to be true. This does not mean that any characters in the Star Wars universe had any exposure to the Christian God or the teachings thereof. Therefore, Stupidape cannot fault Luke or any other character for not believing in the Christian God.Refutations of Stupidape's R4I'm not a fan of new arguments in the final round, but as Stupidape has done so, and the debate rules do not disallow it, I will refute the new arguments made.Authority/Rebellion ArgumentThe Sith take over the democratic government in place in the first three movies. If you make this argument it actually applies to the Sith, as the Jedi are actually fighting for reinstatement of the original government.Justified KillingChristianity allows for justified killings, as killing and murder are different. [1] "The command from scripture in the original language actually says “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13). The Hebrew word for “murder” literally means “the intentional, premeditated killing of another person with malice.”" -Cold Case Christianity with J. Warner WallaceI'd argue that Skywalker's killing of Sith and other members of the Empire are completely justified, considering they were an empire on a war path that indiscriminately killed inhabitants of entire planets. Not only are these killings not evil, they actually prove Luke to be a strong moral character, as he is seeking retribution for innocents who were mercilessly slaughtered by the Empire.ConclusionEven if you buy my opponent's witchcraft argument, which was only lightly touched upon, I win on Skywalker's morality. Vote Con. Thank you.[1] http://coldcasechristianity.com...