BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Will arguing help or detriment your cause? (For: Argue, Against: Don't)

One question we must all find ourselves asking is whether the arguing we put forth is going to benefit others, and I also find that others in society would like to question the reasoning behind our arguments. What do I think? When someone argues, they use his/her best rhetorical skill. They have the goal of winning in mind, but that, at least to society, is considered a very selfish motive. While there are times which call to be selfish, others do not. What if I told you that arguing, while thought of as selfish, actually helps others as well as allows one to continue his/her arguing? I find that to get to this logic I must find myself picturing every avenue that this can stem, of which is not very complicated. One: The arguer does not influence the other, Two: The arguer influences the other toward his/her beliefs. We could allude to a free lottery ticket, whether one is against or for gambling is beside the point, but if one who, on a regular basis, gambles happens to obtain a free gambling ticket, would one say that they shouldn't use it because it's selfish? Debating and arguing are two different things, do not get them confused; at times of irrationality, debating may seem nearly impossible.
Gun Rights

Listen ok, gun free zones don't work ok. The men who made the constitution and the bill rights said that we have THE RIGHT to bear arms, to say that "they didn't mean military type hardware" you have to remember the arms they had was military grade, just like today. Let's refer to drugs, they're illegal right? Guess what it's still a major problem if we ban guns the exact same thing will happen CRIMINALS WILL GET IT EITHER WAY if one teacher had a gun at columbine then all those lives COULDVE been saved. The argument that gun free zones work is ludicrous because CRIMINALS DONT IBEY LAWS it's a fact cmon man you gotta realize this.
Police brutality is not the number 1 concern for African American communities.

Police brutality is a problem for African Americans. However it is not the number one problem for them. Out of the 7000 murderers of black people each year 93% of them are by other black people. Most of this is gang violence related. These stats are from the fbi and national crime victimization survey. What black people should be worried about is the high levels of poverty they're communities are plagued with and the unemployment rate. 1 in 2 black men does not have a job. Black people should focus on education so they can get good jobs. There should be more black fathers around do young black men don't join gangs for a sense of family. 75% of black kids are born out of wedlock. If you are raised by a single mom you are more likely to be poor.
Police brutality is not the number 1 concern for African American communities.

I am very sorry to hear about that. I assume you live in a middle class area with little gang violence. In this case your biggest concern would be police brutality. For African Americans who live in poor areas this is not the case. Like I said almost 7000 black on black murderers a year. Most of these are gang related and occur in poor areas where people suffer from poverty and unemployment. As terrible as Eric garners death was this was fairly remote. In many poor areas (no matter the race) gang violence kills hundreds of people. In Chicago alone there are hundreds of gang deaths a year most of which are black on black. For most African Americans gang violence is the number one concern. This is true for African Americans living in poor areas where gangs roam the street. For middle class African Americans this might not be the case. Since many African Americans live in low income areas where gang violence is common gang violence is their number one problem. I'm sorry about your grandfather.
Getting Honor Roll is good

Con fails to relate to the main topic. I said that getting honor roll is GOOD. By that i mean for all the races and peoples. So, I still believe that getting honor roll is good because for some people getting honor roll is a great achievement. I did not say it was for asians only. Also, getting honor roll does not mean that you won't get into a good college because colleges rarely look at your middle school records. Honor roll's purpose is to motivate people to do better by giving them something to award them with. In conclusion, honor roll is a good achievement. It does not matter who you are, you should be congratulated for getting honor roll because its purpose is to motivate people to do better. And as always: GETTING HONOR ROLL IS GOOD! !! !! !
Getting Honor Roll is good

"Honor roll may be acceptable for you but not for me." I did not say honor roll was acceptable for me as i am asian too. I said that it was a good grade. People often mistake the fact that asians are all smart. That is not always the case. A lot of asians are not smart. Vise Versa a lot of white people are smart. Because of this, the people of different races should be placed at fairly the same standard. So..... I still think that an asian getting an honor roll should be congradulated. After all A is excellent and B is good. And please post more content on the next few debates
should homework be banned

Families can connect with their children in many ways. one of them is to know what they are learning in school. if you cant connect enough with your children, than that's your problem. homework will not only help your children but it will also prepare them for the future. I know that when I was in elementary school, I got sooo much help from my homework because I knew it was a review of the work that I did at school. not having enough time to connect with you children isn't because of their homework, its because they either don't feel that homework is a time to practice their work. instead they probably think its a time to spend hours and hours needing to get you work all correct. this is my opinion, but I think homework should not banned for these couple of few reasons.
The existence of the immortal soul

So Here Goes:I will be arguing that the Immortal Soul does not exist and that Consciousness is indeed a brain based Illusion. Firstly: On the Immortal Soul: I'll let Richard Dawkins have the first comment. From "The God Delusion" page 398. "If someone fears death, sincere belief that he has an immortal soul can be consoling - unless, of course, he thinks he is going to hell or purgatory. False beliefs can be every bit as consoling as true ones, right up until the moment of disillusionment. "I'll Take Another Religions View Of Consciousness:Buddhism has been teaching this for thousands of years, even before Christianity started. Our brains have innate abilities developed through Evolution that allow us to not only perceive our immediate environment, but to perceive ourselves perceiving our environment. Add to this Mirror Neuron capabilities of reflecting the actions and emotions of others, then we have the ability to perceive how others are perceiving their environment and even perceive how they are perceiving us perceiving our environment. Thus the brain has inbuild recursive functions. Because the structures of the brain do not just process thoughts and information forward as would a computer program, the brain also channels information backwards and to subsidury structures for recombination and recursion. I also have a few Questions I would like Pro to Answer:Though first Pro should define what he considers as Consciousness? ? Does Pro envision the Immortal Soul as a form of Cosmic Consciousness? How does this Immortal Soul actually function? Does This Immortal Soul Allow Individuals To Feel Anything (like, empathy, pain or softeness) After Death and How Does It? Here is a Buddhist view of Consciousness. . http://www.buddhanet.net...Essentially the Buddhist view agrees with some scientific and psychological views of Consciousness. In That Consciousness Is An Illusion Created By The Brain. The ability to perceive our own consciousness and the consciousness of Others, comes under Theory Of Mind:Though we are not alone there, as even Chimpanzees Exhibit Theory Of Mind. Prof. Robert Sapolsky demonstrates this nicely:Thus, by logical reason, if other Apes also have self consciousness and the same Theory Of Mind as humans, then they too must also have the same immortal soul, that is, if it indeed exists. But, demonstrating it's existence is Pro's job. So it's over to Pro!
The existence of the immortal soul

All of physical existence consists of matter, matter is purely material and objective. Our physical brain is made of matter. A purely material objective substance could not produce the subjective experience of conscious self awareness that we all have, modern empirical science to this day cannot solve the hard problem of consciousness. So it is safe to assume that this experience is brought on by a nonmaterial self or a soul. Furthermore all physical matter is interconnected at an electromagnetic level to the point that human bodies can exchange electrons. In the physical world nothing exists purely by itself without relationship to other physical things. For example protons can not exist without electrons and electrons cannot exist without neutrons and since these three substances make up all matter all forms of matter are co dependent on each other just like these sub particles are co dependent on each other. So it is clear that according to science there is no such thing as physical separateness. If human beings were purely physical beings they could not perceive themselves as separate beings which they clearly do. Since the brain is where perception comes from and it is purely physical and all physicality is inseparable the brain cannot perceive itself as a separate being. This perception must come from an immaterial mind an immortal soul.
I'm going to be a single issue voter in 2008

Hi Guardian Yes, I guessed that you were conservative. That's why it surprises me that you are on the ‘Con' side of this debate, as you can see from the following rejoinders: Remember what I said in Round 2, that in voting my ‘single issue' I would coincidentally get all my other secondary issues as a bonus, since I expect all the leading ‘conservative' candidates would give us the security and schooling you want for your kids...and the future Court decisions more likely to benefit them as they are growing up. My "picture is too big" ? What do you think of the picture your kids will see when they are in their 20's and 30's, after the Court has been skewed to repeated 5/4, 6/3, 7/2 decisions in a liberal direction ? My ‘single issue' is based on the need to have real conservative administrations, supported by conservative Court decisions. Not the professional Republican politicians who imitate the spendthrift liberals in order to assure their own reelections, and who protect outfits like the NEA who oppose charter schools. I want a Court which says if you can't vote, you can't contribute to political campaigns. (Money should not be speech!) No corporations, no PACs, no unions, etc. As far as respect for those lofty eminences on the Court, I can only go so far. For example, most of the statements I hear from Thomas and Scalia during TV interviews (and their published judicial findings) raise my regard for them and their thinking, whereas several statements from Breyer and O'Connor have appalled me. So much for their law degrees and experience. Even geniuses can be wrong! They are only human. Yes, I admit that I want justices to hand down decisions which are in line with my interpretation of the law. Don't you ? Isn't that what representative democracy is all about ? Regards, Nelson Lee Walker, Saratoga, CA http://tenurecorrupts.com... http://foavc.org... http://youtube.com...
I'm going to be a single issue voter in 2008

Nels96, I admire your passion. For the most part, I'm a conservative as well. However.... I'm a proud father of two. My son is now three years old. That means that he'll begin school under the next president and congress. I want to make sure that he gets everything that he needs for the best education he can get. I want to make sure that he's safe in his neighborhood. I want to make sure that my kids have the best chance at life as can be provided. When I vote next year, I'm not only voting for myself, but for my kids and their future as well. It's great to look at the big picture and think about the next 30 years. I just believe that there's more to this election than insuring correct constitutional interpretation. 20 years from now, what good is a court that can interpret the law, if the countries economy has been run into the ground, our education system is in shambles, and we're experiencing numerous terrorist attacks because of bad foreign policy. I think the picture you're looking at is a little too big. I may not always agree with the rulings by the Supreme Court, but I do have respect for the people that sit on that bench. To suggest that the justices do anything BUT interpret the constitution to the best of their understanding is a little insulting. They have been lawyers and judges longer than I've been alive. To say that you or anyone else without a law degree can decide what the founders of the constitution meant better than they can, blows my mind. You need to just admit that you want judges to hand down rulings that are in line with YOUR interpretation of the law.
I'm going to be a single issue voter in 2008

Hi Guardian I think it is a single issue chiefly because the next president will nominate 2 or 3 justices that will be in place for 30 years or so, and that is a profoundly more important impact long term than any other issue I can think of. I certainly am not hypocritically wanting the Court "to change things". I want the Court to hew to the Constitution, not to see things that are not there. Yes, I'm mad because I can't have it 'my way'. I want conservative justices who won't change the Constitution without using the amendatory process. If that's 'my way', so be it. Sure there are more issues out there, but most of them will coincidentally fall my way if I get the president who will nominate strict constructionist justices. It is bad enough that every 2 years we reelect 98% of the House (and 90% of 1/3 of the Senate) even tho' Congress has record breaking low opinion polls. Obviously, our current system of elections is no way to run the country. The least we can do is try to keep the Supreme Court 'honest'!
I'm going to be a single issue voter in 2008

While I agree that the choices for the Supreme Court are important, I don't think that it's a single issue that's important enough to choose members of congress and presidents on. I think you should expand your horizons on this. You say that liberals are using the Supreme Court to "legislate from the bench. " At the same time, you're wanting the courts to change things that the congress has the authority to do. So, isn't your argument a bit hypocritical? It sounds like you're mad because you can't have your way. So, rather than working within the system for change, it sounds like you're trying to change things by doing the same "evil" that you're denouncing. There has to be more than a single issue in the elections next year. What good is a president and congress that gives you what you want domestically, if they have no foreign policy, no moral values, a weak national defense strategy, the list goes on and on. I think you really need to look at the big picture. Every four years, all Americans get to be politicians when we vote for president. All politicians compromise on certain things to ultimately get the most desired policies that they want. We are no different on election day. We take the good with the bad. It's okay to be passionate on issues, but not to the point that it blinds you to the rest of the issues.
I'm going to be a single issue voter in 2008

WHY I'M GOING TO BE A SINGLE ISSUE VOTER IN 2008. SHOULDN'T YOU DO THE SAME...? Normally, I vote for a candidate in the presidential election for a host of reasons, mostly on conservative leanings. In 2008 however, after a very disappointing Bush administration (except for the war on terror, 2 justices, and tax reductions), I feel that the single most important consideration for the future of our country, is going to involve the selection of Supreme Court justices. Given the fact that two or three of the Supremes are very old, or sickly, or both, it is possible that there will be 2, 3, or even 4 openings on the Court during the 4 or 8 years of the new administration. And those new justices are likely to sit for 30 years or more! Whether they are activists, or strict constructionists, (and the current balance is 5 to 4), will make a big difference in the direction of our country for the next three or four generations. Since the liberals have been using the Supreme Court's activist justices instead of Congress to accomplish their objectives, it is particularly important that we focus on getting more ‘originalist' justices on the Court. To do that, we mustn't let any Democrat become the next President. Almost any Republican candidate now running should be acceptable, providing he has the stomach and the imagination to fight hard to win, whether he is a fiscal conservative, a social conservative, or just a plain moderate. I'm going to be a single issue voter, and that issue is going to be --- who is the candidate most likely to win, and get us more ‘strict constructionist' justices on the Court ? It is of paramount importance that our next president be committed to nominating, and fighting for, justices who will interpret the Constitution as our Founders originally intended, not to "legislating from the bench". Some of the things that a strong majority ‘strict constructionist' Court might do to return power to the people are: • Clarify Article V to force Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments when 2/3 of state legislatures apply for it. (all 50 states already have; Congress is stonewalling) • Rule that partisan Congressional redistricting is unconstitutional, specifically favoring computer-neutral redistricting. • Disqualifying corporations, PACs, union organizations, and all other such entities from contributing to federal election financing (if you can't vote, you can't contribute). • Reversal of the 5-4 decision in USTL v Thornton which prevents the states from term limiting their Congressional contingent. Please consider this issue when voting for president in 2008 Nelson Lee Walker of tenurecorrupts.com
Jesus is most likely derived from other mythologies

The debate will be about whether Jesus' existence is most likely originated in other philosophies or religions. This will be about his teachings, events in his life and other such things. Definitions:Mythologies : Other stories from history. These may be historical fiction, purely fictuitous, etc. And factual examples would in theory be allowed (if it weren't for the fact that I won't use them). Derived: The story of Jesus is derived, meaning inspired from or sourcing from another. Jesus: I mean the historical figure and his teachings, events in his life and other such things. Not Jesús, the guy who did my garden last month.
Should guns be illegal or further restricted by the government.

> it is estimated that guns save 500, 000 to 2, 000, 000 lives a year. Large range because its hard to tell how many lives are saved and a person could save lives by just having a gun on them preventing someone from committing a crime. > %89 to %97 of homicides by guns are committed by illegally purchased guns. >more than %80 of gun deaths in the U. S. Are gang-related, Already committing felonies. >mass shootings take up a very small percentage of gun-related homicides. >if someone wants to shoot someone, The law isn't gonna stop them from getting a gun. By restricting guns, The black market for guns will be much higher making it easier for criminals to acquire a gun. Its the same reasoning as for why it is easier for teenagers to get marijuana than it is to get alcohol. >although gun homicide rates in Canada, UK, And Switzerland are lower than the US, Crime rates in these countries are exponentially higher. The crime rate in the US is 123. 2 per 100, 000 people compared to Canada at 1, 051 per 100, 000, UK's 1, 600 per 100, 000. Switzerland has an extremely low crime rate because of its extremely high gun rate. In fact, Most men are required to know how to use a gun. The accessibility of guns in Switzerland is why the country has a really low crime rate and a reason they were able to keep their neutral status during wars and how Germany restrained from invading them like they did with other neutral countries during the war like how they invaded Belgium. I've looked for about 10 min and couldn't find a strait rate for Switzerland but it is generally regarded as very low. >Gun buyback programs have never worked in the past. If you look at the Australian buyback program, Although gun deaths have decreased, Crime rates have been on the rise. > Fully automatic guns are illegal in the U. S. And I think all it does is ruins recreational target shooters/hunters fun. >There is no official definition of what an Assault rifle is. Most consider it to be a fully automatic rifle, Which is again, Already banned. >AR-15 are not assault rifles of fully automatic. They are a week, Low caliber, Slow firing, Semi-automatic rifles. AR stands for Arma-light rifle, The name of the brand, Not assault rifle. Almost all gun crimes and deaths are committed using pistols not rifles. >police don't respond fast enough to calls most of the time. Sometimes you are put in a scenario where it is impossible for you to call the police. You should have the right to protect yourself and others from threats using guns. >I don't care about quotes, Please use only factual evidence or use personal opinion for opinionated topics such as rights to self-preservation where there is no evidence for the claim. >I probably forgot something but hopefully, I get to it later. Sorry if my writing seems lazy, I don't really care about writing large paragraphs on a debate website.
Being gay is not a choice.

Gay - homosexual - having the romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex, situationally or as an enduring disposition http://en.wikipedia.org... Choice - the mental process of thinking involved with the process of judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one of them for action http://en.wikipedia.org... I contend that being gay is a choice on behalf of the person whose sexuality is being questioned. There are at least two choices that we can guarantee for people who feel as if they have no choice in the matter: 1. Be gay. 2. Suicide. A dead person has no attractions to anyone, and is therefore not gay. Additional choices: 3. Live in seclusion. A person living in total seclusion can no longer be gay, as there are no longer any people to have an attraction towards. 4. Be sedated. While sedated, a person has no consciousness, and cannot have any relationship with anyone. With these three choices to be considered, I leave the floor to my opponent. Thank you for accepting.
Capital punishment cannot be justified.

Alright Ladies and Gentleman,I would like to state my current issue and opinion with you. I beleive Capital punishment can be justified:1. Depending on the case and evidence, a verdict can be made...If someone has killed a victim that person should not be killed but be PUNISHED by x years in jail, PD etc I believe this because if the killer/murderer is killed it is not him who pays the price but his family and friends, however if he is locked up, or working 24/7 on PD then he would be the one paying the price.I understand Pro is most likely continuing this debate.Thank You very much, VOTE CON!!!!