BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In terms of culture, Egypt is the oldest country

I've erroneously accepted this debate, thinking that you were pro Egypt in the title then changing your mind to pro persia during round one. I'm happy to continue rather than forfeit, but I will be attempting to prove that iran/persia is not the oldest in terms of culture (rather than prove that egypt is). The burden of truth will be with you. I'll provide a definition of culture so we're singing from the same song sheet. Definitions: Culture: the ideas, customs, arts and and social behaviours of a particular people of society. over to you.....
Gentlemen should offer their seats to the obese on crowded trains

While yes, an obese person sweats more and will expose their sweaty armpits, which, do smell very, very, bad. There are several simple ways around this problem. For instance, most people use deodorants, and take showers, so the smell won't be much of a problem. Plus, assuming he's using the train, he probably hasn't been exercising enough to actually break a sweat, so smell won't be much of a problem. Next, my opponent stated: "The problem with this is that the obese will devour their Big Macs standing up instead, and people sitting around them will get all covered with lettuce, onions, pickles, cheese and McDonald's unbeatable Big Mac sauce as the gargantuan gluttons ram their burgers down their outsized gullets. " Yes, I know obese tend to be messy eaters, but it's not like he/she will be eating right over you. And how will food get over everyone around them? He/she is eating her Big Mac, not chucking it at people. Besides, obese people should refrain from using the train altogether. They should try a more healthy form of transportation like biking or jogging. And besides, many fat people can't even fit in the seats.
Gentlemen should offer their seats to the obese on crowded trains

With this being the case, it is clear that the obese are guilty of cynically exploiting the public's sympathy for people with medical conditions in order to get seats on crowded trains and other benefits but, even though that may be so, I still maintain that gentlemen should offer them their seats. Why? Well, it is a well-known fact that the obese perspire more than normal people (1) and as an obese person reaches up to hold the handrail, they expose their sweaty armpits which have a tendency to kick out one hell of a stink - and the all-prevailing stench of putrid perspiration that emanates from these corpulent commuters causes their fellow passengers to gag and wretch at the appalling smell, so it is much better for all concerned that the obese are sitting down. Next, my opponent argued that it would be better for the obese to stand rather than "letting them sit down and devour another Big Mac. " The problem with this is that the obese will devour their Big Macs standing up instead, and people sitting around them will get all covered with lettuce, onions, pickles, cheese and McDonald's unbeatable Big Mac sauce as the gargantuan gluttons ram their burgers down their outsized gullets. I, therefore, reassert that gentlemen should offer their seats to the obese on crowded trains. Thank you. (1) . http://www.bye-bye-excessive-armpit-sweat.com...
Gentlemen should offer their seats to the obese on crowded trains

Thank you brian_eggleston, for this debate. First off, the majority of overweight people do not become grossly obese because of "hormone disorders", but rather because of over eating and lack of exercise. Yes, a select few of them actually have disorders that makes them obese, but almost all of them become fat by their own unhealthy choices in life. I do not feel sorry for them, because they brought it upon themselves, and the chances of them having a hormone disorder (the most common is in the thyroid) is around 1 and 25 (being conservative), and you can't just assume every fat person you see has this. Also, standing in a crowded train is good for the obese person's health, instead of letting them sit down and devour another Big Mac. And besides, how do you know there is not a problem with the healthy gentlemen? What if he's depressed, just been fired, sprained his ankle, or ill? This happens to many people, yet no one feels bad for every man they see on a train and gives up their seat for them, so why should we all just assume that every fat person we see has a disorder? I'd also like to point out that while there is obesity in developing nations, the highest amounts of obesity are still in developed countries like America, UK, New Zealand and Australia, I wonder why. Thank you sources- http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com... http://www.thyroidproblems.net...
Gentlemen should offer their seats to the obese on crowded trains

A gentleman wouldn't hesitate to give up his seat on a crowded train to a lady, an elderly person or a spastic, so why shouldn't he give up his seat to an obese person? After all, nobody chooses to be female, old or handicapped, just like nobody chooses to be obscenely overweight - and the obese have as much difficulty standing as women*, coffin-dodgers and cripples do. According to The Endocrine Society and The Hormone Foundation, people become grossly overweight not because they are greedy and lazy, as you might suppose, but rather that "hormone disorders" may be "the cause of obesity" and they dismiss the notion that "obesity is only prevalent in developed countries that foster indulgent lifestyles, with poor diets and lack of exercise, like the United States and the United Kingdom" and state that "Contrary to popular opinion, in developing countries – where malnutrition levels are high – there are also reported cases of obesity." Furthermore, The Endocrine Society and The Hormone Foundation "do not endorse the use of…diets as appropriate weight loss methods." So, instead of labelling the obese as indolent gluttons who are a burden on the health service, and who should cut down on the burgers and get more exercise, a gentleman should feel sorry for a morbidly overweight person standing on a crowded train and offer them his seat. Thank you. Source - http://www.obesityinamerica.org... * Obviously some women are just as capable as standing as men are, but not if they are pregnant and quite often, with so many women being fat these days, it is difficult to tell.
Resolved: Frodo was not justified in taking the Fellowship into Moria.

Definitions conceded. Response to O1 - Movies clarify. Where the books are confusing or unclear, we can also use the movies to clear up those points. So we shouldn't simply use the books to the exclusion of all else. Clarification of O2 - hindsight. We're looking at it as Frodo after the fact with hindsight. Response to DA1 - White Wizard. Even though Gandalf died, he was later resurrected as the White Wizard, with even greater power and ability. 1st response to DA2 - Aragorn. Even though Gandalf wasn't able to help the fellowship for a period of time, they had a more than adequate leader in Aragorn, heir to the throne of Gondor. 2nd response to DA2 - Not true. No time was lost - the Fellowship scooted immediately upon Gandalf's fall, and used all possible speed to move on ahead. Response to DA3.1 - Beneficial - Gandalf has already been addressed. Beyond the point already made, it's important to note that Gandalf himself said that it was best that Frodo was by himself while passing through Mordor, because then the Eye of Sauron would not be drawn to him. Actually, because Gandalf fell, it made it possible for Frodo to pass through Mordor and eventually destroy the One Ring. The death of Boromir was also beneficial, because if he hadn't been killed off, his desire for the Ring would only have grown, he would have taken it, and most likely, he would have been corrupted and become a wraith and the Ring would have fallen into the hands of the enemy. Response to DA3.2 - Eru's protection - Eru, the 'god' if you will of the LOTR universe, was guiding the Fellowship. Gandalf, in the books, several times references a higher power guiding them all along. There wouldn't have been a mistake. It all worked out for the best in the end, as pointed out above. Disadvantages to the Pro plan - DA1 - goblins returned - The goblins had recuperated and returned to the caves of the Misty Mountains. They weren't as empty as the Pro seems to believe. Similarly to how Dain and the Dwarves of the Iron Hills were severely weakened at the Battle of the Five Armies, but managed to largely recuperate their strength by the time of the LOTR. DA2 - benefits gone - the deaths discussed above would not have occurred if the Fellowship had gone through the empty caves of Moria. Impacts - Gandalf would not be strengthened, Boromir would have probably found a way to steal the Ring, Sauron would have acquired the Ring, etc. DA3 - Fellowship massacred - since the caves weren't empty, the Fellowship would have been massacred. In the end, with the Pro plan, Pro has two choices, both of them are actually Con arguments. Either the caves are crawling with orcs etc, and the Fellowship is wiped out. Or, the caves are empty, and the events that occurred in Moria would not have occurred, and either Boromir would have stolen the Ring, or the Fellowship would have been wiped out while traveling to/through Mordor because the Eye of Sauron would have picked up such a unique and strong band of people.
Resolved: Frodo was not justified in taking the Fellowship into Moria.

Frodo is a great guy. We all like him (hopefully). However, I am of the stance that he should not have led the Fellowship through Moria. Let's cover a few definitions: Frodo: the Ringbearer, the son of Drogo. Justified: having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason. Fellowship: the party of nine, composed of an elf, a dwarf, 2 men, a wizard, and 4 hobbits. Moria: the system of mines constructed by Durin and his people, lying under the Misty Mountains. Observation 1: Books, not movies. Although this is under the category 'movies', we will be looking from the perspective of the books, as they had the closer connection to the author, J.R.R. Tolkien, and thus will be more relevant. Observation 2: Not Frodo's perspective. As we have the books, wThis House: the United States Federal Governmente have the choice of hindsight, and so we will be looking at the perspective of hindsight, and not Frodo's perspective. Disadvantage 1, or a disadvantage of entering into Moria: Gandalf died/suffered. It was a result of leading the Fellowship into Moria that they aroused the armies of Moria, and the Balrog. This caused Gandalf to suffer, and to die, although he was resurrected into the White Wizard. This leads me to my next disadvantage: Disadvantage 2: Lost time: Even though Gandalf revived, the Fellowship still lost precious time by his absence and the delay through Moria. This was dangerous to their mission, which in turn leads me to my last disadvantage. Furthermore, if they had not lost that time, and destroyed the Ring earlier, the Battle of Minas Tirith would have come to much fewer losses on the side of the defenders, especially as the Nazgul would have been destroyed with their master. Disadvantage 3: Only 1 mistake: Of course the Fellowship did accomplish their mission but.... Sub-point 1: Unnecessary loss. Because of this lost time, the Fellowship suffered unnecessary losses, such as the death of Boromir and others, as pointed out in Disadvantage 2. Sub-Point 2: As a result of the first two disadvantages, the Fellowship had only to make one mistake, and all would be lost. Fortunately, this did not happen, and so their mission was accomplished. It could have been otherwise. Finally, let's end with a plan, or another alternative besides Moria: Bilbo's path Remember the caves of goblins in the Hobbit? The path Bilbo took to the Lonely Mountain? All of the goblins living in those caves and caves all over the Misty Mts. were gathered together in the battle of the 5 armies, and crushed. The caves were now empty, and safe. They could have passed through these without difficulty, and not gone through all that loss, and the disadvantages. Today we have covered a lot of stuff. We've taken a look at several observations and disadvantages, as well as a final plan. Overall, I continue to stand resolved that Frodo was not justified in taking the Fellowship through Moria. Thank you, and I hope this speech warrants a pro ballot.
Should we have the death Penalty? (Con is against death penalty)

Argument 1) It is morally wrong. In response to Atheist_Person, I did not cite those statistics because I will be using them here. They will be cited here. There are 3,425 people on death row. 123 of them are innocent. This means that 123 innocent people will be killed, no, murdered. Therefore, the people who are carry out the death penalty on them will be murderers. This is morally wrong, as stated by the Bible in Exodus 20:13. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Ghandi Sources: http://www.openbible.info... http://deathpenalty.procon.org... http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... http://www.theguardian.com...
Should we have the death Penalty? (Con is against death penalty)

Currently there are 3,425 people on Death Row. An incredible 4% are innocent. This totals to 123 people who will be killed, even though they are innocent. The Death Penalty should not be allowed for 3 reasons. 1- It is Morally Wrong 2- It is expensive 3- It is unconstitutional Rules: There will be 5 rounds. Introduction, Argument 1, Argument 2, Argument 3, Conclusion. Any personal attacks on the other debater will result in an instant disqualification. Any logical fallacies can be pointed out. Rebuttals are allowed, and in fact encouraged. Remember to cite your sources for each argument, and may the best man win!
Should we have the death Penalty? (Con is against death penalty)

Since my opponent forfeits, I will briefly restate my arguments. "The United States Supreme Court said this about the death penalty (In Gregg v. Georgia, 1976): "The imposition of the death penalty for the crime of murder has a long history of acceptance both in the United States and in England. . . ." "It is apparent from the text of the Constitution itself that the existence of capital punishment was accepted by the Framers. At the time the Eighth Amendment was ratified, capital punishment was a common sanction in every State. Indeed, the First Congress of the United States enacted legislation providing death as the penalty for specified crimes. The Fifth Amendment, adopted at the same time as the Eighth, contemplated the continued existence of the capital sanction by imposing certain limits on the prosecution of capital cases:" "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . ; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; . . . nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . . ." "And the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted over three-quarters of a century later, similarly contemplates the existence of the capital sanction in providing that no State shall deprive any person of "life, liberty, or property" without due process of law." "For nearly two centuries, this Court, repeatedly and often expressly, has recognized that capital punishment is not invalid per se. . . ." Summary The US Supreme Court has for over 200 years, repeatedly declared the death penalty to be constitutional (except for the four years from 1972 to 1976). It based it's decisions on two Amendments to the Constitution that specifically mention the death penalty as follows: The 5th Amendment to the Constitution says: "No person shall be ... deprived of life ... without due process of law." The 14th Amendment says: "No state shall ... deprive any person of life ... without due process of law." Plus the Supreme Court noted that when the Eight Amendment was written regarding cruel and unusual punishment, capital punishment was a common sanction in every State"---http://constitution.now77.com...... The constitution supports the death penalty as long as there is a "due process of law", which means a person must be tried by a judge in order to receive the penalty. But make no mistake, The constitution does allow it. Refutations. III. Some may say that the death penalty violates the constitutional amendment 8. No one should receive cruel and unusual punishment. However the death penalty is not cruel. It is a just punishment for ones actions against the public and the state. And it is not unusual. It is practiced by 37 of the 50 states. That's the majority of states that practice this law. So you can obviously see, that the death penalty is neither cruel nor unusual. And therefore it is not in a violation with the constitution. As long as it is enacted after the person is tried in a court of law.
Should we have the death Penalty? (Con is against death penalty)

Rebuttal: You are correct. I should have been more careful with my words. The correct word is manslaughter, not murder. 2- Expensive + Better Punishment. The cost for to defend in court and keep in death row is around $2,000,000. LOP (Life without Parole) has a cost of only $1,000,000. The cost is $1,000,000 cheaper than the death penalty. Also, LOP is a better punishment than the Death Penalty.Imagine dying, quickly and painlessly. That isn't really a punishment, especially for somebody who has already sent people to the grave. Then, look at a life spent in tiny rooms with disgusting food and countless fights with other prisoners. Given the option, I would choose dying. But if we make it clear the tiny rooms, horrible/little food, fights and injuries, and dying alone and scared are what murder and rape get you, the crime rTe would go down dramatically.
As a moderate Christian, I strive to find a balance between the cross, and individuality.

On the one hand, I need Jesus, on the other, it is okay to be an individual. The time and the place for almost everything according to Ecclesiastes 3:1-8. The only perfect religious Person is Jesus, and those that repent of all sins, confess Him as Lord, and testify about the new relationship with God in human flesh will receive help from the Holy Spirit. If you meed me to prove something, let me know. I chose the 10,000 character max.
It is reasonable to believe in the existence of God

Well I'm going to keep my arguments simple as i'm not really sure what my opponent just said... Did he agree with me? Anyway: Teleological argument If you saw a watch lying in the middle of the forest, you wouldn't think that it was uncaused. Rather, the most logical explanation was that it was designed by a watchmaker. Same with the universe - the complexity and order in both the cosmos and in life on earth is far too complex for it not to be designed by a creator. We can then apply occam's razor to this argument - only one designer is necesaary. Moral Argument Where do we get our morals from? If morals are objective, the God exists as the source of moral authority. And there is reason to think that morals are objective - it is fundamentally wrong, for example, to abuse a child. Someone who thinks otherwise is considered evil. So from personal experience, we can say that morals are objective, not subjective where one person's moral opinion is no different to another - the child abuser is no different to a loving parent.
Torture is a practice that should be avoided by the US.

First, I would like to go over your point about faulty information being better than no information. I can explain why faulty information is worse due to the fact that with faulty information, we slow down our ability to respond to actual terrorist threats, since we are using our manpower and resources elsewhere based on faulty information. We can see an example of this on an American Prospect article in 2014. The article shows how Majid Khan gave a false report to the CIA to avoid more enhanced interrogation, which involved being slammed against a wall and waterboarded. This is only one of many examples, that regardless if the CIA counts as true or not, has come to light in the past few years. As stated previously treats all information equally, The group would look into matters that did not need being looked into, wasting time and manpower which could be spent actually countering terrorist threats. Secondly, you claim that torture actually deters terrorists from joining groups, but this is clearly shown to be untrue. I have shown evidence to the contrary, but I will explain the reasoning behind my claim. Terrorists are bound by anti-American sentiment in most cases and are convinced that the US is a destructive and terrible force in the Middle East and elsewhere. By torturing the detainees, we are only proving what the terrorists are told, that the US is an evil country that tortures people. Multiple magazines created by terrorist groups, such as "Inspire" by Al Qaeda, have shown Guantanamo Bay and torture in general to convince people that the US is dangerous and needs to be stopped. My first speech had the evidence in the sources listed if you are interested. Also, you claim that punishment is the only way to get information out of people, but what about trying to get the detainee on our side? We could offer them help and reach out to them, which may convince them of helping the US as opposed to the terrorist organization they previously joined. This is because we prove to them that we are not the intrusive, evil government that the terrorists brainwash them to believe, we prove we can compromise and help. I will now address your third point. I already offered a faster alternative in the previous paragraph, but I will still hold my position that expanding our pool of information to other countries would definitely help our ability to locate terrorist bases of operations and foil some terrorist plots. Finally, I will show the problem with even light torture. There is no proof that light torture would be anywhere near as effective as simply compromising with the suspects. You offer no sources to show how your alternative works better than the ones I proposed. The clear answer is an affirmative vote, thank you. Good luck!
Torture is a practice that should be avoided by the US.

Hi, I am happy that my English is not bad.First off, I want to address what you said about faulty information being better than no information. You say that it is not true that faulty information is better. You do not say why no information is better. The US can not get any progress on ending terrorism with no information either. Faulty information is more useful because at least they have a lead. Now onto what you say about the torture being used to recruit people for the terrorist groups. I think that torturing is discouraging people to join these groups because if you can be tortured if it is found out that you in one of the groups. You did not mention what I said about torture being the only good way to get information. If people are not being punish for not giving information, why would the give any?I would now like to address your alternative. I don't think that the alternative would be as effective as torture, because it would be much slower.Lastly, I think that torture should be continued with changes. The torture doesn't have to be as brutal. Lighter torture might get more information out of people because they are not in intense pain. I also think that the US should stop killing the detainees if they don't get any information. They should keep trying to get information. That's all I have to say, good luck!