BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
My opponent picks the potential topic.

You've essentially tried to make any debate practically unwinnable by choosing whether you're pro/con for any topic with any "argument" that you decide to create based on your interpretation of the topic which is pretty cheap. You could've chosen Hitler as a topic and chose to be "con" that Hitler mostly was good. What I mean is, you really haven't "interpreted the argument" because I haven't made any arguments. I've only providing a list of topics even though I was supposed to provide topics with arguments but by inventing an argument with one of my topics from the previous round you've accepted that my topic counted as an argument. So you've changed a topic into an argument which wasn't even part of the rules of the debate. Therefore you've broken your own rules. Even though the spirit of this debate has turned out to be really quite cheap because con is essentially interpreting any topic into any argument (even though an argument was never presented in the first place) and choosing any side he wishes to be on, I'll play along. Goiters, even though they are a result of iodine deficiency and can result in serious problems, are mostly good because they are an obvious warning to anyone that has developed a goiter and an obvious warning to those around them. If somebody had a goiter it would be obvious that they need medical attention immediately. Since goiters are very noticeable, they are mostly good because they are an alarming warning that you are iodine deficient. If goiters weren't noticeable, people would be very iodine deficient and probably never know. Therefore goiters are mostly good because they act as an obvious and noticeable warning to those who didn't know they were vitamin deficient. Now, notice I said "mostly good" which means that the goiter by nature is not all good because the vitamin deficiency that causes this sweling is very bad. But mostly it is good because it acts as a warning to those that have one and to those around them that are vitamin deficient.
My opponent picks the potential topic.

I interpret the topics as whether they are good/bad. I have chosen the topic "Goiters are mostly good" and I am con. I define "goiters" as "a swelling of the neck resulting from enlargement of the thyroid gland" and "good" as "to be desired or approved of". I inserted a most so that you do not have to argue that goiters are completely good. ArgumentsThere are many reasons why goiters are not good. Since something must have caused goiters, something bad must have happened. For example, iodine deficiency can cause goiters. "When iodine requirements are not met, the thyroid may no longer be able to synthesize sufficient amounts of thyroid hormone. The resulting low-level of thyroid hormones in the blood is the principal factor responsible for the series of functional and developmental abnormalities, collectively referred to as IDD. Iodine deficiency is a significant cause of mental developmental problems in children, including implications on reproductive functions and lowering of IQ levels in school-aged children". [1] As you can see, iodine deficiency is very bad. Since iodine deficiency causes goiters, goiters as well are bad. [1] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...Thank you.
My opponent picks the potential topic.

Welcome to the debate. This is a special debate, with special formats as follows.FORMAT1st round-Pro Introduce the parametersSelf-explanatory1st round-Con Provide the possible argumentsProvide ten possible arguments for me to choose from. Do NOT try to define or explain the arguments, as I can interpret the arguments any way I wish. Anything here should only be greetings or topics. I decide which side I wish to be, IGNORE the fact that debate.org says that I'm pro. The debate topics have to be somewhat different, to prevent ten rewording of a single topic. I can change the topic you provide slightly as well for the debate to be a fun experience. At the start of round 2 I will underline and bold the confirmed topic. 2nd round-Pro Argument & selection of topic.I will provide a confirmed topic here, define the topic and supply my arguments as necessary. My side (pro/con) will also be clearly stated here. Please cite all research and arguments. Please provide evidence for all arguments.2nd round-Con Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.3rd round-Pro Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.3rd round-Con Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.4th round-Pro Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.4th round-Con Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments. 5th round-Pro Conclusion & Rebuttal.Rebut arguments and provide a conclusion in this round. No new arguments.5th round-Con Conclusion & Rebuttal.Rebut arguments and provide a conclusion in this round. No new arguments.No abusive language please. The topics that con picks should not be abusive. The topic has to be debatable worldwide. "My opponent picks the topic." is only a placeholder for real topic, so you may NOT post "I am not posting any topics, therefore I win" or something along those lines. Also, please post topics that are easy to debate on both sides.Failure to follow the rules and format stated above results in a full 7-point forfeit to the opposing team.PLEASE READ THE FORMAT AND RULES.I hope we have a good debate. Time limit for each argument: 1 day.Character limit: 5000Thank you.
should we have phones in school

I believe that yes phones are very helpful in our academics. However they create a big distraction to other students or the person using the Cellphone. With these distractions it can cause the user using the cellphone to fail there class and not learn anything that your teacher would be teaching you. Depending on some states students must take a standardized test in order to get into a better college or better classes but then again if the user uses there Cellphones during class it may affect those very important grades that some states require. Take for instance in the state of Pennsylvania, students must take keystones to graduate. Those kinds of tests are important to take.
Civil Disobedience in a Democracy is Morally Justified

My opponent ignores my legal alternative argument, meaning that my opponent concedes that Civil Disobedience is not always needed, so we will use this argument to weigh the round. It is also illegal for my opponent to bring up new arguments against old arguments, so you as the judge will have to drop any arguments my opponent brings up about Civil Disobedience being the only means for people's protest or any arguments on my legal alternatives counterplan. Now, onto my opponent's only piece of offense in the round, where he says Civil Disobedience is non-violent. Sure, Civil Disobedience might be non-violent, but it's the fact that Civil Disobedience leads to anarchy and violence. There will always be opposing views, so with Civil Disobedience you will always have opposing views. We should go with the legal system because Civil Disobedience undermines the democratic process. By voting negative, you are still providing alternate alternatives that do not break the law to help the minorities, while still meeting the majority's needs, while in the pro world, you allow for people to deliberately break the law. Thus, I negate.
Civil Disobedience in a Democracy is Morally Justified

I think it is less that I have misinterpreted Thomas Jeffersons quote so much as my opponent has misinterpreted my quote, Civil Disobedience is defined as:"the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest."So clearly I am not defending a violent revolt, though in some extreme cases this becomes necessary, I am saying that if the goveronment ceases preserving our liberties we should be able to refuse obedience to them.
Civil Disobedience in a Democracy is Morally Justified

Look at my contention three, Susan TIefenburn explains how there are other legal ways in which we can turn to when the government goes out of hand. I think my opponent has misinterpreted what Thomas Jefferson is saying, and that is that people have the right to dissent, to picket, to mass assembly, to use social media, etc., and considering how my opponent ignores this, you can refute my opponent's argument, and if anything this is just a turn of the affirmative argument.
Civil Disobedience in a Democracy is Morally Justified

The people have the right to replace or revise any government which to preserve their liberties. Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of independence:That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."-Thomas Jefferson
Artifiacial Intelligence should be give human emotion

Artificial intelligence today isn't exactly artificial intelligence. It's mainly scripted text. For example, the humanoid robot(Sophia) is just filled with programmed answers. People should focus on the intelligence of artificial intelligence. Research on the ability of emotion wastes what could be time to improve how it functions. The money spent in this case is unimportant. I do not see the benefit of having human emotion when it comes to artificial intelligence.
Magnets do not have anything to do with gay marriage. Someone intelligent please join the debate.

In your beginning argument you said that it is "very natural for male on male." I assumed by this that you either endorsed or thought it right for gays. That is why I said that. Also, mental illnesses shouldn't have died out because they usually wait until the carrier is older and has had kids before it appears. So, it would not die out. Also, if evolution had eons to take out homosexual gene it would have done that. Also, I understand that people leave society, but to leave society, you must have a society to leave. I would admit that a lot of stuff relates to genetics. However, I would disagree that everything does. Genetics does not decide how I like my bagels. Also, If some animals do it for dominance, that would mean that it is not their natural sexuality, but a way of establishing their dominance. I also apologize for jumping to conclusions about the animals do it, so we should thing. However, you said that animals being gay was very natural, so it is natural for males to do it. That would mean that you seem to think it is ok, so, in essence you did make that argument. Society does not change very much. Some parts of it do, but not really. The surface and customs and shallow values do, but it doesn't really change. Every society values courage. Every society that has been able to exist for a reasonable amount of time values the same sort of things, even if they seem to take different forms. So, society isn't a variable. It is a constant. Finally, Adolf Hitler blamed the Jews for the issues. They did make up part of the society, but he blamed them for the problems in the society. So my argument is not like his at all.
Magnets do not have anything to do with gay marriage. Someone intelligent please join the debate.

Umm... I'm not sure where and when you decided to twist my words from my argument, but that is not what i said. i don't recall saying we should do it. Oh wait, that's because i didn't. Technically, according to the survival of the fittest, shouldn't have mental illness died out? Just wondering about that.. because thats a gene. A gene can hide within multiple generations before it finally is shown within an organism. It can hide. Also, you are telling me that every human being on this planet exists in a society? Any human being on this Earth to ever have existed has lived in a society? That is not the case. People leave society. They cut themselves off from it completely. Science shows that any part of us that exists is related to genetics. Even twins that have been torn apart from birth tend to have similar traits in their preferences and personality by at least 50%. The rest is epigenetics. Certain genes are expressed or not expressed depending on the environment or experiences. I said that some animals do it via dominance to show that it is indeed natural for an organism to have a certain sexuality. And your questions. As I quote, "Also, if you use the argument that since animals do it, we should do it,.." Number one, never said that. We are clearly not like other animals. Number two, my dog takes a dump outside. Should i be like the animal and do it like it? Come on,.. you sound like you are getting emotional. History is the version of the past that people have decided to agree upon. I was warning you to not overlook things, not say that none of history is false. You will find documents, very old documents, written by people of the past from a very long time ago of punishments held to homosexuals for them being so. Sure, they are records written by people, and they are a version that they have agreed upon, but if they knew about it back then, during their society which is completely different from today's, how is it to blame when the only thing that changed was indeed society? And last but not least, you wanna talk about where arguments lead? Yours is very similar to that of Adolf Hitler... he also blamed society for some (according to him) issues. (Your next argument will be that this is like the quote that history is a version,.... right? well, he did manage to write an essay about the matter)
Magnets do not have anything to do with gay marriage. Someone intelligent please join the debate.

For your first line, that society is not the cause, because homosexuality has always been around, society has always been around too. Society is a group of people living in a more or less ordered community. Humans are social beings. Society has always been around. Besides, you cannot say that homosexuals have always been around because of your last line: history is just a version of the past that people have decided to agree upon. Based upon that, you can not know whether or not homosexuals have always been around. However, you can know that society has always been around because humans group together for better survival. So, society has been around longer than homosexuals, and thus you can blame it for homosexuals. Additionally, (correct me if I'm wrong, but I am assuming you believe in evolution), according to evolution, gays shouldn't be here because they cannot reproduce. So, it cannot help your survival and thus should have died out, because of survival of the fittest. However, since it has not, but there is another thing that is proven to cause it, which is society, it is not natural. Also, for the animals, you can't use that argument because as you said they do it for dominance. Also, I bet you could find a video of one species having sex with another species. Does that mean bestiality is natural, and thus we should do it? Of course not. Also, if you use the arugment that since animals do it, we should do it, doesn't it logically follow that infanticide should happen? Cause lions do it. Your argument logically leads down to roads that anyone would tell you is not right. Finally, your statement that its a gene even though you have no proof of that is the best example of blind faith I have every seen.
Magnets do not have anything to do with gay marriage. Someone intelligent please join the debate.

Society is not the cause.. homosexuality has always been around. if you dig deep enough into history, you will find it. and according to new studies into genetics, the topic being epigenetics, the study of how your genes change according to environmental factors, the gay gene is very possible.. however dormant it can remain. and also, a mind is a very complex machine. it can break and bend and snap to many things. gayness can be an anger result, leading to molestation and is common amongst families. and sometimes it happens when someone gets drunk, comes home, and that leads to molestation. its all in the magical brain that we as scientists can barely actively study because its almost impossible to study chemical imbalances while the being is still alive.... and as my previous statement says, so thus i have to repeat myself, animals are gay too... they've been gay, and if you dig really deep into history, its always been there.. we have always had homo human beings... so how can we blame a constantly changing variable(society) on a constant throughout time and nature? you cant blame society on something that has always been there. so, thus its a gene. we just havent figured out what it is yet.. since there are so many. just like a mental illness. or the color of your eyes. also, remember though when you look it up, history is just a version of the past that people have decided to agree upon.... (napoleon bonaparte)
Magnets do not have anything to do with gay marriage. Someone intelligent please join the debate.

I am going to assume that your debate is whether or not gay marriage is natural or not. I would agree that magnets do not have anything to do with gay marriage. However, I do not think that gay marriage is natural or not. Now, there has been a lot of study into the issue of whether or not there is a gay gene. However, the evidence for that is negligible and inconclusive, and pretty much all scientists have dropped it. (If you want confirmation, look up the gay gene). However, most experts in that area agree that it is mainly society that is the cause of homosexuality. (aka exotic is erotic, siblings increase your chance, yadi yadi yadi) Therefore, since it is society that is the cause, then it is man-made and not natural
Magnets do not have anything to do with gay marriage. Someone intelligent please join the debate.

Greetings! My first debate. So, your best argument against gay marriage is that it is unnatural? via magnets. saying that two positive ends do not attract. right, because a penis has a plus sign on it. No, wait, it doesnt. Its called a brain, and other animals brains. The only way to compare gayness to nature is to look at beings that are similar to us. i.e. a dog humps one another to show dominance. this isnt the same thing as gay humans, but animals being gay is very natural. This has also showed up with cats as well. So, it isnt unnatural at all. its very natural for male on male.
The Bible does not give one person authority to govern a local church.

Throughout history, the Church has experimented with different structures of leadership. But, what has been largely ignored by modern churches is the fact that single elder rule, where one man is said to have been "called by God" to preside over an assembly is not a scriptural model in the least. Christian advocated for a distribution of authority, kingship, and priesthood among all believers with the Holy Spirit serving as the sole head of the Church. Anything other than this model is akin to the people of Israel wanting a human king instead of allow God to be their king.
The Bible does not give one person authority to govern a local church.

In conclusion, my opponent has failed to demonstrate any sort of true knowledge of the topic at hand, nor any conclusive evidence to his point. Therefore, I will reiterate the initial premise, that the Bible does not give one person authority to govern a local church. Christ distributed authority, kingship, and the priesthood to all Believers. Everything else in this discussion is nonsense. Opponent may feel free to summarize his points in writing. Christ does not require a person to call a phone number to learn someone's twisted version of the "truth".
The Bible does not give one person authority to govern a local church.

Like I said I do not care about this debate it was about giving you an opportunity to learn the right way to follow Christ and you have allowed your own stubbornness to stop you from learning. Honestly there is no point in saying anything else until you are actually ready to start over and learn the right way to follow Christ. So at this point I am going to brush the dust from my feet and move on. If you decide to change your ways and you decide you are ready to start over and learn the right way to follow Christ The True Body of Christ is here to help you do that. You can give us a call at 1-818-273-1044. As for the debate I am done. God Bless.
The US military should intervene in Syria

P1: If there is a possibility the same situation that happened in Somalia could happen, like you said, then is best not to find out. We should help humanitarianly, but not military. More deaths is not going to solve the problem. Let the country work it on its own. P2: You said" yes they are progressing and have removed almost half of their stockpiles" We can conclude that half is better than none. The article states as you already stated, " it will be important to maintain this newly momentum" We can see they are making an effort of diplomacy that is slowly working. June has not come yet, so we shouldn't speculate on the future, but the present and that is that half ,is better than none. An effort is being made. P3: Essentially what you are saying is to go in blind and hope for the best. The American soldiers first duty is to protect us, Americans. We would lose more and nothing to gain. Diplomacy is our best bet in order to minimize casualties. C: The United States should not intervene MILITARILY in Syria.
The US military should intervene in Syria

P1. There is a possibility that the same situation could happen in Somalia but we wouldn't"t know. It is better to try to help them then to stand by as thousands of people continue to die. To not risk the lives of thousands of lives would be the right term but to say American lives rather than just lives in your last argument is like saying Syrian lives are not worth the intervention. I know this might not be the argument you are making but that is what it seems like. If we are to send aide to the Syrians then we could save a lot of lives instead of having them die since many would not have the right equipment, skills, or resources to survive during this conflict. P2. Your source was from March 4th while my source was from March 19th and yes they are progressing and have removed almost half of their stockpiles but it is not certain that they will be meeting their deadline once again. Also, diplomacy is not stronger than force and this is a perfect example. As stated in the article you provided for P2, "Given delays since the lapse of the two target dates for removal, it will be important to maintain this newly created momentum" There second deadline was April which they did not meet. Whether they meet their June deadline is not certain but what is certain is that diplomacy does not have a stronger appearance than force. P3. I agree that it is essential to know who your enemies are in order to know who is committing the crimes but just because we don"t know now does not mean we should not try to find out who are the leaders of these groups, as well as helping the people from Syria to prevent them from having to go through hardships. As for the last question you asked it is a bit unclear. I understand that there are groups that are fighting together but there are still people that are not involved in the groups and are just trying to live to see a day were there will be no more conflict. These are the people that American soldiers would be fighting to protect and yes we would be losing lives but at the same time we would be saving more lives by ending the conflict sooner. Conclusion: The United States should go to war with Syria.