BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We should have a world government

You aren't wrong, however, I never said anything about one official language and all others dying out. My proposition is more of one secondary language, one that is only really used if there is no communication. My aim is to keep as much cultural diversity while having a government that would handle some of the bigger issues. I do understand that people will argue, but if we keep cultural diversity, while the government has some authority, while we leave some of the smaller issues to the people. You are correct in there being some corruption, but much of it can be prevented by the government running certain propositions through the people. Also, some of the corruption that comes from crime bosses running illegal immigration. With no countries to immigrate between, there would be no illegal immigration. Not too mention those crime bosses wouldn't be able to escape by going to another country. The police would be able follow them everywhere. Also, I know we would have to ease it in and I know some countries would not accept. I did address this in a comment. "I know it won't be accepted at once. So we would probably slowly ease the world into it. And country leaders might not agree, but the people will likely want a better government, and the leader is ultimately just a person" I know unity is not the greatest thing, but I am against war, and right now, unity is the only way to achieve this. Your proposition for the committee is a good idea, however, the countries just likely won't listen. And if they invade, and after 3 years the citizens don't like it, who says the conqueror won't just keep the country? I am interested in your proposition, however, I have thought at as many angles as I can, and this is the best idea I could think of. If it does break up, well it will have delayed war by a couple decades, which is necessary, because by then things can be worked out. Good luck
Should Black People Be Allowed in The >>USA<<

I will be operating under the theory of utilitarianism.[1] Despite existing at 12.8% of the US population, blacks are responsible for 51.5% of homicides.[2][3] I further suggest that it would be impractical to attempt to eject criminals from society as they will have already committed the crime. I propose that, in order to maximize utility, despite the great injustice it would be, we relocate based on racial profiling for the safety (and utility) of other Americans. (References in comment)
Should Black People Be Allowed in The >>USA<<

Im here today to point the argument that i hear from schools,Airports,and secret sociality.The myth that the Negro is somehow incapable of liberating himself, is lazy, etc., came out of the American experience. In the books that children read, whites are always "good" (good symbols are white), blacks are "evil" or seen as savages in movies, their language is referred to as a "dialect," and black people in this country are supposedly descended from savages.
Should Black People Be Allowed in The >>USA<<

My argument stands uncontested. Reasons to vote for me and where: 1) Convincing argument. I have presented an argument, whereas pro has presented none. 2) Convincing argument. Pro failed to counter my argument. 3) Sources. I cited 2 government sites for statistics and one other for a definition/description. 4) Conduct. Pro appeared not to take this debate seriously as in round 2 he laughed off one of my statements without proper response, and he forfeited round 3. Thank you for the debate!
Should Black People Be Allowed in The >>USA<<

Homicide is indeed a big LOL: Loss of life. This is to be taken seriously. Pro has not contested my point. In order to show that black people should be allowed to live in the US, pro must: A - Propose an alternative theory of ethics. B - Show that it is acceptable under utilitarianism. As an addition to my argument, I would like to point out that whether the predisposition is genetically or sociologically based is irrelevant. Under utilitarianism, the only thing that matters is the consequences.
Governments should support research into the cure for male homosexuality

No, when I speak of a "cure" I mean a proper medical remedy for the condition. My opponent states that homosexuality is not a disease or a mental condition and I concur with this analysis. Homosexuality in men (but not women) is a genetic disorder caused by the mutation of genes that takes place in the sufferers' mothers' wombs. [1] Therefore, homosexual men are not "disease-ridden" or "mental cases", no, they are mutants. It is possible to detect genetic mutations in a foetus the womb so that the parents can elect to have the pregnancy terminated. Just think how useful it would be if the mutated genes that cause homosexuality in males could be identified prior to birth. Wouldn"t the world be a better place if Mr and Mrs John had little Elton flushed down the toilet, or Mr and Mrs Michael had young George ripped out with a pair of forceps, or Mrs Bieber had her womb scraped when she was pregnant with the infant Justin? Moving on, those fascist politicians of the Nazi era were, indeed, wrong to believe homosexuality was a disease but, as my opponent noted, other fascists rightly describe homosexuality as a "sickness", which it is, in the sense that it is a medical condition. Finally, while homophobia does exist and should, indeed, be discouraged so it is true that homosexual mutants exist. So, as we have established, homosexuality a medical condition caused by a mutation in the genes, it can, therefore, at least in in theory, be cured - all we need is the funding for more research. Thank you. [1] . http://www.psychologytoday.com...
Governments should support research into the cure for male homosexuality

Any normal man would consider being sexually penetrated by another man a fate worse than death but there are some men who, tragically, have to endure this horrific ordeal on a regular basis. These men suffer from what the medical profession call "homosexuality". Sadly, there is no cure for homosexuality and, worse still, there is no major research funding in place to find a remedy for this distressing and humiliating condition. [1] Large sections of society misunderstands this terrible ailment, wrongly assuming that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and, consequently, sufferers often face verbal and physical abuse from bigoted people who don't realise that homosexuality is a disability just like any other. Of course, it is not socially acceptable to approach a disabled person in the street, tip their wheelchair over and scream: "You dirty, f***ing cripple, f*** off and die you filthy spastic bastard" at them. After all, their physical handicap is not their choice, just like being a homosexual gentleman is, obviously, not something any man would choose to be. That's why they should not be subjected to abuse or discrimination. Unfortunately, though, there will always be some ignorant people in the world who completely fail to understand the nature of this terrible affliction and persecute homosexual sufferers which means a cure for male homosexuality required all the more urgently. However, certain conservative politicians and religious fanatics want to see homosexual men punished, not cured. Indeed, in many countries around the world homosexual gentlemen are criminalised, with sufferers being sentenced to imprisonment or even death. [2] In my view, it's time the international community ignored the opinions of fascist politicians and religious zealots and officially supported fundraising for research into the cure for male homosexuality. Thank you. [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Poseidon and Hephaestus were originally the same god

Dropped argumentsI have no argument against the relationship of Poseidon, Enki, Agni, and *H2epom NepotsThe connection between Hephaetus and *H2epom Nepots, on the other hand, is coming from the connection between Ptah and Enki. So if I can break the latter, the former will be broken as well.Enki as the creator GodMy opponent didn’t refute my point that Enki didn’t create the world like Ptah but he only created human.In his own source, it’s said that Ptah created the heaven and the earth while Khnum, another Egyptian god, created the first humans on his potter’s wheel with silt [1], which is extremely similar to how Enki created men from clay.Enki, a Crafts God or a Agricultural GodMy opponent said that Enki is associated with many aspects of human society. Crafts is one of them. Agriculture is also one of them. So why should crafts be the major aspect and agriculture secondary?I would argue that agriculture is a major aspect of Enki. He is not only related to irrigation but he made flood and rain as well (according to "Enki and the World Order" [2]). Creation, water and agriculture are three relating concepts. Because they are all related to life. Enki created human and he brought life by adding water to the land, allowing the human to get food by themselves.Enki and PtahFirstly, it’s Atum, not Ptah, who rose from Nun to create the world [3]. And that's in the Heliopolitan creation myth, not the Memphite myth where Ptah came from. Again, in my opponent's own source, it's said that Ptah created Nun.Secondly, I couldn't find in my opponent’s source where it implied that “Ptah represented the ability of artists and craftmen to envision their finish work, and then bring it into being” or “Enki decreed the fates of all things, and had perfect foresight”. Other than that, do we have to agree that Ptah and Enki are similar just because they both did some planning before doing something? Isn’t that what anyone with common sense would do?Ptah originsLower Egyptian culture was influenced by the Ancient Sumerians doesn’t mean that a particular god in the Egyptian myth must come from the Sumerian myth. So it’s not “safe to assume the Myth of Ptah was inspired by an earlier Mesopotamian myth”.[1] http://www.touregypt.net...[2] http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...[3] http://ancientegyptonline.co.uk...
Poseidon and Hephaestus were originally the same god

I'm impressed by the large amount of evidence. Nevertheless, I would like to cast my doubt about this matter. Allow me to summarize my opponent's points. Basically they are like these: Poseidon is an adaption of Enki Hephaestus is an adaption of Ptah Ptah is also an adaption of Enki Therefore, Poseidon and Hephaestus were originally the same god. In order to reach his conclusion, my opponent needs to prove all the above three conditions to be true. I, on the other hand, only need to refute one of them. So, my question is: Is Ptah is the Egyptian adaptation of the Sumerian God Enki? According to my opponent, both Enki and Ptah are the "god of crafts, intelligence, and creation". Yes, it's true that both of them create things and are the embodiment of intelligence. However, those are the common attributes expected from the chief gods of their respective pantheon. If we look at them more closely we will see that they are not the same. In the Egyptian mythology, Ptah is the oldest god who existed before everything and the world was created by his thought. He built "the framework of the universe" and "created the great metal plate that was the floor of heaven and the roof of the sky" [1]. It's said that "gods are born, towns are founded, and order is maintained" thanks to Ptah [2]. In the Sumerian mythology, it's not clear how the world was created. There is not a single myth that explains who is the one/are the ones responsible for the creation of the world [3]. The only creation associated with Enki is how he created the first human from clay according to the story "Enki and Ninmah" [4] (however in another story, "The song of the hoe", the one who created mankind is Enlil, Enki's brother [5]). Therefore, Ptah and Enki are clearly not in the same par even though they are both called "the god of creation". In the story "Enki and the World Order", Enki is said to fill the Tigris and Euphrates with water, arrange rain, bestow the cultivated fields with barley [6]. For a supposed patron of crafts, Enki is arguably closer to agriculture, unlike Ptah who is associated with craftsmanship, architect, metalworking and shipbuilding. In conclusion, Ptah is too different to be an adaption of Enki. As the result, Poseidon and Hephaestus do not have the same origin. [1] . http://www.egyptartsite.com...;[2] . http://www.egyptianmyths.net...[3] . http://www.metmuseum.org...[4] . http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk... #[5] . http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...[6] . http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...
Poseidon and Hephaestus were originally the same god

Restating the connectionIn Round 2, my opponent clearly stated that "Hephaestus was an adaption of Ptah, who was an adaption of Enki, who in turn was an adaption of H2epom Nepots". This is like a chain, we only need to remove one link then the chain will be broken. If we disregard Enki, then whatever similarities between Hephaestus and H2epom Nepots are irrelevant. Unless my opponent wants to argue that "Hephaestus is a direct adaption of H2epom Nepots".KhnumMy opponent said that Khnum originated from Elephantine so his myth is influenced by Nubians, not Sumerians. But let's look at Khnum. He is a water god. He is closely associated with the art of pottery (therefore crafts). He is also a creation god who created men [1]. I think everyone can figure out themselves who he is similar to.Enki as the creator GodMy opponent tried to use wording in order to make the connection between Enki and Ptah by saying that both Ptah and Enki created through "speech". However, by his own words, Enki did not actively create things but intructed others to do. While Ptah, who existed before everything, created the world on his own. Whether he used mouth, or heart, or hands is irrelevant. As I said above, Enki as a creation god is similar to Khnum, not Ptah.Enki, a Crafts God or an Agricultural GodI concede this point.Enki and PtahI don't know why I am not allowed to attack my opponent's source. If he doesn't have evidence to back up his claim, then his points are moot. When I said I can't find where in my opponent's source stating that "Enki created decreed the fate of all things", it literally means that I couldn't find it in the links my opponent provided in Round 3.And I did refute his points. Is imagining the thing you want to make before actually making it can be used as evidence to show the similarity between the two gods? Isn't that just common sense?My opponent said that "Ptah personified Tatjenen", and this will serve two purpose: First, to show that Ptah also rose from primordial waters like Enki. Second, to make another connection to Enki through Vishnu (the rest of his arguments are basically Tatjenen = Vishnu = Enki).Unfortunately, Ptah and Tatjenen (or Tatenen) are two different gods. Yes, sometimes they are combined to become Ptah-Tatenen. But there are also Ptah-Sokari, Ptah-Nun, Ptah-Naunet, Ptah-Atum, Ptah-Shu, Ptah-Osiris. Does my opponent want to argue that the above gods are all Ptah? Amusingly, Ptah-Tatenen is actually a rare combination [2].On the other hand, Khnum (who, according to my opponent, has a Nubian origin, not Mesopotamian) is identified with Tatenen in "The Hymn to Khnum" [3]. So actually my opponent has proved that Enki is strongly connected to Khnum.[1] http://ancientegyptonline.co.uk...[2] books.google.com.vn/books?isbn=076619034X[3] http://www.reshafim.org.il...
what would the world be like if mostly controlled by women

Simply put, this is a topic that frustrates me. People assume that because women are of a different gender than men that they would run the world differently. This is neither true or false. My opinion is that we wouldn't be able to accurately figure out what would happen if women ruled the Earth until it happens. Contention 1: It's never Happened I know this sounds like a troll answer, but this is my opinion. The world has never been ruled mostly by women. Therefore, we don't have a comparison point to accurately predict what would happen if women ruled the world. It'd be like trying to predict the answer to these questions. When will I die? How will I die? What will the world look like in 100 years? These questions don't have any logical answer because you can only guess due to the fact that those events have not yet occurred. The same thing goes with predicting what the world would be like if women ruled it. The only way you can answer that question is a guess, which a completely incompetent way of answering a question. Conclusion: I have given my opinion that nobody can logically predict what the world would be like if women ruled the world and supported my case. I await my opponent's next argument.
Abortion should be illegal

... That's it? That's your argument? While it may be enough to win some biased votes on this site, unfortunately for the sake of debate I have already discussed why adoption is not always a favorable alternative to abortion. "For reasons I have already discussed, sometimes a pregnancy alone is enough to severly harm a woman (i.e. her health, relationships, etc). Also, many women who are unaware of their pregnancy continue to engage in risky behavior, i.e. alcohol or drug abuse. By eliminating abortion as an option, we would be forcing women to accept the risks of pregnancy even while knowing the fetus may be defective (thanks to new technology that can reveal birth defects before a baby is born). This is not healthy for neither the child nor the woman." My opponent offers no rebuttal to any of my previous claims, nor does she include substantial reasoning why carrying a fetus to term and giving it up for adoption is preferable. Her sole contention - that it's free - can be easily refuted by the fact that it costs money to carry a fetus to term. Even if this is covered by prospective adoptive parents, it still costs you time (which you cannot get back), pain, and all of the other consequences of pregnancy that I have included in R1. Now don't get me wrong - I am not pro abortion. I am pro CHOICE.
the newtown shooting happened and was not a setup

First of all you can not say, "you can either debate it was a setup or never happened at all." I can have my own opinion on any subject. Now to the debate, you have your own opinion and that is fair but you are arguing with yourself on this because you now that a person cant have that big of a grudge on a elementary school child, and even if he did why would he kill that many children if he was going after just one. I think that we can both agree that the Newtown Shooting was a horrible scene. So don't try to make it even more horrible by trying to say that it was planned and a setup for something even worse.
unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation

RebuttalsHave you ever heard of the word "obligation"? Obligation means an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment. The United States has an obligation to prevent nuclear proliferation. Yes, the United States has that kind of obligation, but the question: Is the United States the only country that has the obligation to prevent nuclear proliferation? Obviously it’s not. The United States is not the world government nor the world police. It must respect the opinions and the words of other countries. Taking a unilateral military action without considering other options given by other states is very assumptive act. Take for example in Syria, the US was about take a military action against Assad’s government, but with both Russia and UN intervention, the worst was prevented. In connection with this, I am not saying that there should be nuclear proliferation, but any action taken against another country should come from a collective decision.Nuclear proliferation is the greatest threat to world peace. Paul D. Miller, assistant professor of international security studies U., has evidence stating that t"he single greatest danger to global peace and to the United States is the presence of powerful autocratic states armed with nuclear weapons. Ask yourself this question; If Iran, or any others for that matter, was to launch an atomic weapon at the United States, would you want to shoot back? Or would you want to let them hit us, making it a possibility for them to attack other regions? I would want to shoot back. But we don"t have to if we use military force to stop nuclear proliferation. Not only will they be stopped, but it could pose threats to other autocratic adversaries making them less of a threat. That’s right! Nuclear proliferation is the greatest threat to world peace(take note: you said world peace, this means it is the world’s responsibility, not US alone) I am not here to refute whether or not nuclear weapons are dangerous, because apparently, they are very dangerous to everyone. Why I am here is to dispute on whether or not the United States has the sole responsibility of taking unilateral action against any state suspected proliferating nuclear weapons. So far, my opponent has yet to provide any arguments as to why US unilateral military action against nuclear proliferation is justified. He was just explaining the danger of nuclear weapons(we all know that it’s dangerous), which is not even the subject of this debate.
unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation

Have you ever heard of the word "obligation"? Obligation means an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment. The United States has an obligation to prevent nuclear proliferation. It is our job to use military force to protect the United States. That is why I know that unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation. Nuclear proliferation is the greatest threat to world peace. Paul D. Miller, assistant professor of international security studies U., has evidence stating that t"he single greatest danger to global peace and to the United States is the presence of powerful autocratic states armed with nuclear weapons. Ask yourself this question; If Iran, or any others for that matter, was to launch an atomic weapon at the United States, would you want to shoot back? Or would you want to let them hit us, making it a possibility for them to attack other regions? I would want to shoot back. But we don"t have to if we use military force to stop nuclear proliferation. Not only will they be stopped, but it could pose threats to other autocratic adversaries making them less of a threat. A nuclear Iran would trigger Middle East proliferation. My theory is, and other political leaders also, that Iran will not be the only one in the region to equip nuclear weapons. This is because of Iran. Iran is making them jealous of their power. According to a National Review, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey are all likely candidates, and Libya"s Moammar Qaddafi may well decide that his 2003 decision to give up his program was ill-advised and get back in the game. Others are most likely to follow. But I am going to concentrate this more on Iran .A nuclear Iran will increase terrorism. Last year an associate professor, Colin H. Kahl, of the school of Foreign Service in Georgetown University, gave evidence stating the following. A nuclear-armed Iran, believing that it possessed a powerful deterrent and could thus commit violence abroad with near impunity, might also increase the frequency and scale of the terrorist attacks against U.S. and Israeli targets carried out by Hezbollah and the Quds Force, the convert operations wing of Iran"s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.