BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Without lies humanity would perish of despair and boredom. Anatole France

Good Retort, PowerPickachu21, You have finally convinced me that you 'get' the parameters of this consideration.I propose that lies are boring and I used political hogwash to illustrated this fact.Self-delusion and pretence are also soul destroying and ultimately 'boring'It is like eating waffles all day. It is what we do. One might suggest that we are only bored coming down from these injections of regular 'lie fixes',but in fact we are 'bored all the time'. I'm bored with Syria because Clinton actually had sex with Monica. I was reading a Guardian account about the sex last night before bed. I spent yesterday watching Obama pirouette around lies with regard to the actual state of combat on the ground in Afghanistan. Who is he kidding? Not even himself! Yawn! Boring!Now examine the alternative which is my position and which is one to which you did not respond.What happens when we 'drop' lies?Listen to Anatole France within comments and he will tell you.We go for walks.We define ourselves by deeds.We proceed with conviction and truth and we 'seize the day'This would not be boring because of the immediacy of the interraction and because of the progressive progression of the process. PPP.Do you get it?Lies and sloth are easy options and are bad habits akin to eating rubbish. We are lethargic and bored as a result.We need to go on a 'lie free' diet and thus become energized.I thank you for your contributions to date, to this discussion, PowerPickachu21, and I look forward to your counter argument regarding the central purport of my submission to this round
music lyrics should remain unrestricted

The impression that the music leaves on the youth could be as well as a problem due to music as it would if they started becoming more violent because they started playing Call of Duty or Halo. there is nothing you can do about the impression of our youth, and the popular demand for these forms of art like music and video games suggest that you cannot take these away or limit them. but you are right in the way of if the artist is attacking another person's reputation in a way that the victim doesn't want, then you should limit that because that could be an indirect form of bullying or verbal assault.
music lyrics should remain unrestricted

The Constitution regulates the things that people are allowed to say. There are clauses in the Constitution that deal with these things. The problem with music is that there is Slander, where the artist is defaming a person's reputation. If things like Slander and Libel are regulated with everything else then why wouldn't music be regulated? All other forms of art such as poetry, and books are monitored and regulated for content purposes, therefore as another art form music should be too. Also Music leaves a much bigger impression on the youth with their catchy lyrics and hypnotic hooks, a musician could hold more power and influence over the youth then, literary figures like Emerson and Throe. Music should be regulated and restricted to protect the youth of our society.
Islam Is a Religion of Peace

Full Resolution: Islam is a religion that preaches peace. Definitions: Islam: "Islam is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion articulated by the Qur'an, a text considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God (Arabic: الله‎ Allāh), and by the teachings and normative example (called the Sunnah and composed of Hadith) of Muhammad, considered by them to be the last prophet of God."[1] Peace: "A state of mutual harmony between people or groups, especially in personal relations."[2] Rules: 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is an automatic loss and all seven points for voting should be given to the other person. 3. No semantics. Debate Structure: Round 1: Acceptance. Round 2: All arguments made (no rebuttals). Round 3: Rebuttals (no new arguments). Round 4: More rebuttals (again, no new arguments). Round 5: Conclusion (just summarize your arguments and the flaws in your opponent's arguments, no new arguments, max 2500 characters). By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to the full resolution, definitions, rules, and debate structure. Please make this debate clean and mannerly. May the best debater win. Sources: [1]:http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]:http://dictionary.reference.com...
Resolved: That the United States Should Normalize Relations With Cuba

Ok, my guess is my opponent couldn't figure out how to get Chris to post his argument, so after 3 day the time just ran out on him. Word Of Advice: You can't get anyone else to post arguments. Even if we have partners. lol. Exstend all of my arguments, again prefer my definition because it is based on Normal by treating Cuba like a person. Rember, you can't like everybody: Just deal with it. And we do, and because our current relation (which haven't changed in 59 years) are normal, then relations can't be normalized (implied action).
The avengers should not have signed the soviet accords

Paying collateral damage? That is the issue??? It has not been an issue ever and has never been brought up in any movie. There was never a problem mentioned about who is going to pay for this. My points are that it was wrong to sign because the people were inconsistent with the reasons they gave to sign, they are the ones responsible for breaking unity, and it is going to cause more danger to all people if the UN is in charge. I think that lives are more important than collateral damage.
The avengers should not have signed the soviet accords

You dont see how the team is broken up after the accord is signed? By law the ones who didnt sign are no longer heroes and are forced to retire. When captain America didnt sign, he was no longer a recognized avenger. He may not have been on the UN most wanted list at that time, but captain was certainly not on their team. And my point was not whether the majority of people see batman as a vigilante or hero, but that peoples opinion have no weight on how effective the group is. And the avengers are stopping crime that would be more dangerous and cause more damage than what the avengers do trying to stop them. If the avengers stop someone trying to blow up the world, but in stopping him they blow up a building, i think that the second is the most beneficial of the city.
The avengers should not have signed the soviet accords

I don't see the team having broken up when the accord is signed, it is when captain america helps a known criminal. And batman only works in the parameter of gotham city, so while some see him as a vigilante, they also see the good he's done in that city, but the Avengers work on a global scale, so they may show up to a city only once and nearly destroy a city and then leave and never return.
The avengers should not have signed the soviet accords

Captain America doesn't fight anyone on his team. He fights other heroes after they signed the accord, ending the partnership between them. Second point, having the peoples support has nothing to do with the effectiveness of a team. Batman is hated by most everyone in gotham because they believe he is responsible for things harvey dent did. I also still think my other point that with the avengers signing the accord hasnt been answered because more lives would be lost than by not signing at all because a panel would only let them stop crime "when they see fit"
The avengers should not have signed the soviet accords

But doesn't captain america prove that he needs to be kept in check when he is willing to fight members of his own team to protect a friend, who yes had no control over his own-self, but was still responsible for the deaths of many. How effective can a group be if they do not have the support of the people they are trying to protect. People would not feel safe when the Avengers arrived, they would simply see it as trading one problem for another, by signing the soviet accords they would rebuild that trust.
The avengers should not have signed the soviet accords

I think that the most important thing the avengers could have would be unity. So by some signing and some not sogning, it obviously caused a breach in that unity. And with that point alone, the blame couldn't really go to either side. But lets look at the main reasons that the people who signed decided to. The first reason was because they thought they should "be kept in check." This was not done by iron man or romanov. Both decided to do their own thing and not worry about whether it was what the UN wanted them to do or not. I think another point would be involving a conversation between romanov and cap. Romanov said "staying together is the most important thing." Captain America replied "But at what cost?" I think he is saying that staying together as vigilantes has less consequences than staying together as a part of the UN. I think it would be measured by the number of lives that would be lost. The avengers would only be able to do something when the panel of UN members says they can. So i think that more lives would be lost if they can only defend the nations "whenever the panel sees fit" rather than when the avengers deem it necessary
Pigeons are the dumbest species of bird.

this is a very interesting subject i will prove to you that pigeons are in fact not dumb dumb [duhm] adjective, dumb"er, dumb"est. 1. lacking intelligence or good judgment; stupid; dull-witted. 2. lacking the power of speech (offensive when applied to humans): a dumb animal. http://dictionary.reference.com... this round was for definitions and agreement to debate since i only have 500 characters
The hypocrisy of Barack Obama and his administration.

It seems my opponent is trolling or just a conspiracy theorist. He only goes after one of my arguments.Doesn't matter. Knowingly ordering drone strikes with the knowledge that children could be killed is still hypocritical.Does sending your child outside to play hypocritical? Because the child could die. Again there's collateral damage in war. It doesn't matter if it's drones or not. It's unintended and strives to be prevented. Pro then goes off the deep end and starts talking about irrelevant conspiracy theories. This has nothing to do with the debate, but please check out these links and videos debunking your claims http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com... http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com...
The hypocrisy of Barack Obama and his administration.

Doesn't matter. Knowingly ordering drone strikes with the knowledge that children could be killed is still hypocritical. I am not a Republican. I am not right-wing. I am an independent, a critical thinker and a student of free thought. 9/11 was an inside job and you know it by god. The reptilians are planning numerous atrocities against our species as we speak and I'm just gonna tell you that I love my guns more than I love my genitals and I will use them to defend myself against the lizard man onslaught. FEMA are building concentration camps for liberals too, because they took the guns. 9/11 was an inside job. The Federal Reserve is nothing more than an illegal banking system created by the elite that prints money with no value. 9/11 was an inside job. We've had contact with aliens since Roswell, Know why? Because the ET's took the guns from my forefathers that built this country with the intent of not having to deal with erectile dysfunction commercials that do nothing more but inspire impotence in my sex life. The Obama Administration is a pale imitation of the Grover Cleveland Administration of 2004. 9/11 was an inside job. Jesse Ventura for President. Alex Jones for VP. SUCK ON THAT.
The hypocrisy of Barack Obama and his administration.

Hypocrisy a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess [1]. Pro has the BOP Let's look at his first argument. Instigating a gun control debate and a call to action against firearms, when he himself and his family are guarded 24/7 by agents with high-caliber firearms The way this would be hypocritical is if Obama is claiming that no one should have protection. “Gun control” doesn't mean a complete ban on guns or even high caliber firearms. Obama nor any legislation is around to constitutionally disarm citizens. There's no way or motive for him doing so. Joe Biden actually said"I guarantee you Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns, so don’t buy that malarkey," [2] The main idea is that gun control would stop people who intend to do harm from obtaining firearms. There's no hypocrisy. Now his second. Claiming to care for the welfare of children when the administration itself orders numerous drone strikes in other countries, killing dozens of children. This would only be hypocritical if the Obama administration targeted the children personally. These were cases of collateral damage which happens in war regardless of who's in charge. It happened under the Bush administration [3] and will still happen in war regardless. Someone can support the war in Iraq, yet oppose collateral damage and not be hypocritical. Pro's argument fails, unless he can prove that these children were the main targets. Pro's hasn't met his BOP [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://abcnews.go.com... [3] http://www.iraqbodycount.org...
The hypocrisy of Barack Obama and his administration.

Barack Obama and his administration are one of the high points of hypocrisy in modern society. Instigating a gun control debate and a call to action against firearms, when he himself and his family are guarded 24/7 by agents with high-caliber firearms. Claiming to care for the welfare of children when the administration itself orders numerous drone strikes in other countries, killing dozens of children. So, give me your best liberal point of view on these points because I would like to tell you why you're wrong.
The hypocrisy of Barack Obama and his administration.

Pro pretty much dropped his argument. What I mean by the analogy is that there's still a chance that a child will die when going outside. The difference in the spectrum of existence is what makes it an analogy! You can't criticize an analogy on the grounds of it being an analogy. Pro never shows why the videos and links are wrong. There's nothing to respond to and I never said a thing about Ventra. Really, this debate has gone nuts.
anti fear=thinking about it is pointless without havning seen it

We are not in complete control of our thoughts. Have you ever tried to stop thinking when you try to go to sleep? It is very difficult to do for very long. So trying to stop thinking about something you are afraid of is not going to completely work. Often when you are trying to stop thinking something you fear makes you even more fearful because you star thinking about not thinking about it, and then you just start thinking about it more. Not thinking about it can help but it can't eliminate fear. In fact nothing can really eliminate fear. We just sometimes have to be brave. Trying to accept something that is going to happen will help but the fear is going to be there. Lets say you are going to have a painful surgery next week. You won't be able to completely stop thinking about it. Even if you accept that this is going to happen, there is still going to be fear. But there is a point to sometimes think about something you fear. Maybe you might just find a solution, a way to avoid pain.
anti fear=thinking about it is pointless without havning seen it

This is my first debate in a while and hope that we can have an interesting discussion. Vi Spex say that not having fear is accepting now as it is and not thinking about something without seeing it yet. This is not a very clear definition. I am betting that Vi Spex means that if you are afraid of something you can get rid of this fear by not thinking about it if it has not happened yet, and just accepting that it will happen.
God Exists

God does not exist because the soul does not exist. Soul "The spirit or essence of a person usually thought to consist of one's thoughts and personality. Often believed to live on after the person's death." http://en.wiktionary.org... Thoughts and personalities are from the brain, which is physical, and, as such, problems from damage to and/or defects in the brain (e.g. amnesia, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia) are capable of affecting those thoughts and personalities. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Poor people are Far better off than rich people

I guess i was talking about how money can destroy peoples lives, rape the forest, and do all kinds of damage on its way to the table. Large amounts of cash do not make people happy. Majority rules when one is looking for facts. I have done countless searches on the net, and come to find that modesty is the best way to go! And since i felt this way before my search, i was not influenced in any which way. So if the voter can agree that we silly naked humans, would be better off with only the things we need, like food, clothes, Eco friendly housing, and a vacation every now and then, that would mean i win! If not you win! But this is just a fun round for me anyway! As I go I will think of clearer, and way cleaner topics.
Poor people are Far better off than rich people

Hi Fishbait, I do not really think that the whole if you are rich you will be unhappy thing true in most cases, although this may happen to some rich people. It depends more on the type of person that you were before you got the large amounts of cash. If a person was okay and happy with their life before the riches then I believe that it would just enhance that persons life because they now have lots of other opportunities to go along with their personality. If a person only wanted "things" and then got rich and got all of those things and then didn't know what else to do then I could see how they might be unhappy. I personally have not grown up with much more than what is considered necessity (at least for living in the US, in some places I would be considered spoiled) but riches would not change my view of things. Since I am already happy in my current situation I would not be spending the money to fill a void of happiness but rather to decrease some unhappiness(ie.bill,stress, etc)
Poor people are Far better off than rich people

Hello, who ever you are. I am new to this debating thing, and would prefer someone who will not try and make a fool out of me, but rather get to the point. I believe that if a person has a lot of money, that person will soon realise that all the things money can buy will never be enough, so it is better to have very little, and enjoy the best things in life and forget about all the rest. Note: When i say very little, I mean just enough to take care of things and thats it. I look forward to your arguments, and may the best debater win!
Poor people are Far better off than rich people

1.Money doesn't destroy peoples lives, people destroy peoples lives. It's like guns don't kill people, people kill people with guns. The gun is simply one option present to cause the affirmative action in this case "murder" or "killing" if the gun didn't exist these actions would have still taken place by other means like a knife or crossbow for example. The same goes for money it is just the thing that gets blamed and not the root of the problem. 2.I didn't say large amounts of money would make people happy, but rather that it would not make them unhappy. 3.In your scenario of silly naked humans a person achieving these things probably works 40+ hours a week just to afford what is seen here as basic needs. Meaning less time to spend with family, loved ones, and less time doing things that are enjoyable or meaningful to that person. So living a simple life makes it harder to enjoy what one might consider "the best things in life" as you mentioned in your first statement.
No theory qualifies to be a theory of evolution

Seeing as my opponent has not responded in the previous rounds I will just make a conclusion of the debate right now. Conclusion of debate: 1. I have proved that there is indeed a theory explain the origin of divisibility, comparability, connectivity, sensitivity, transformability, substitutability and satisfiability, and explained how it can qualify to be a theory of evolution. The main information I used for my argument is that "Differences in trait composition between isolated populations over many generations may result in the origin of new species" as well as other facts I explained in Round 2. In Round 2 PRO basically conceded that my point about "a trait of organisms" is indeed a theory which explains the origin of divisibility, comparability, connectivity, sensitivity, transformability, substitutability and satisfiability. 3. In Round 3 it appeared that my opponent was not actually making arguments. He was repeating himself constantly and using no definite evidence to give evidence that there is no theory of evolution nor does he offer an alternate view of opinion. However I did provide evidence with the sources I used in Round 1. To me it seems like PRO was not taking this debate seriously (therefore he should be marked as Misconduct). 4. In Round 4 and 5 PRO forfeited the rounds meaning that he must have giving up on trying to win the debate because he may not have been able to counter argue my arguments.
No theory qualifies to be a theory of evolution

My opponent is not actually making arguments. He is repeating himself constantly and using no definite evidence to give evidence that there is no theory of evolution nor does he offer an alternate view of opinion. To me it seems like he is not taking this debate seriously. I feel what I have explained in my previous rounds still stands correct and logical, as well as still qualify to be a theory of evolution. Until my opponent can give definite evidence to give evidence that there is no theory of evolution or even offer an alternate view of opinion... for now I just say my argument is extended...
No theory qualifies to be a theory of evolution

//Differences in trait composition between isolated populations over many generations may result in the origin of new species. (for example we humans feel love, many other living organisms do not). 2. All living organisms alive today have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool).// How can the DIFFERENCES in trait composition between isolated populations over many generations may result in the origin of new species? The problem is with 'DIFFERENCE' The difference between population 'A' and population 'B' is neither in population 'A' nor in population 'B', but it is in between population 'A' and population 'B'. How can that which is neither in in population 'A' nor in population 'B' contribute to the origin of species?
No theory qualifies to be a theory of evolution

Well it appears PRO has extended my own argument... For example he kept repeating questions like "Isn't divisibility a trait of organisms?" and "Isn't comparability a trait of organisms?" with "a trait of organisms". PRO basically conceded that "a trait of organisms" is indeed a theory which explain the origin of divisibility, comparability, connectivity, sensitivity, transformability, substitutability and satisfiability. PRO mysteriously quoted a sentence of mine that I made in the first round which was: "Evolution is usually defined simply as changes in trait or gene frequency in a population of organisms from one generation to the next." And that does indeed qualify to be a theory of evolution. I will repeat the 2 claims I said in my first round which are that: 1. Differences in trait composition between isolated populations over many generations may result in the origin of new species. (for example we humans feel love, many other living organisms do not). 2. All living organisms alive today have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool). Overall I have explained (and PRO has conceded) that there are theories which CAN explain the origin of divisibility, comparability, connectivity, sensitivity, transformability, substitutability, and satisfiability, and do qualify to be a theory of evolution.