BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Free will can not exist

Hello and might I say that I too am new to this site. I stand in firm affirmation of the fact that free will does indeed exist. When we look into our nervous system we find that although it is chemically composed of many complex parts, it need the will from the being to actually work accordingly. Know my opponent mentioned that we are composed of both internal and external restraint however; my opponent failed to realize that we actually bend both the internal and external barriers to our personal needs. The force of emotion does not play a role simply because the human could easily avoid and bend the emotions to there will. know my opponent stated a scenario In which he states "Choice is an illusion since even choosing McDonald's over Burger king is based on reasoning, which is based on logic which is based on chemical input based on previous choices, like growing up on McDonald's". know within this scenario, we must find that choice is not an illusion but "The power, right, or liberty to choose" The power, right, or liberty to choose".(http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) The word liberty shows us that choice is not a part of the person but is created by the being. The simple choice of McDonald over burger king is indeed determined by previous experience but made by the free will and choice of the being. Correct Formula: Previous experience+ chemical composition + choice~ FREE WILL ~= congruent not similar
Free will can not exist

Hello, i am new to this site, and was brought in due to an argument i witnessed on this site. The voters agreed that free will does exist, in my opinion on account that they want to believe this is true. Though i will state my main point, that we are chemical systems, with predetermined reactions, controlled by inner sources (restrained) and also external sources (restrained). This being said we are unable to have freedom, which is the ability to act or speak or think without restraint or barrier. Since we are forced to feel emotions, due to preprogrammed chemical laws, and outside stimuli, how can one truly say we have free will. Choice is an illusion since even choosing Mcdonald's over Burger king is based on reasoning, which is based on logic which is based on chemical input based on previous choices, like growing up on Mcdonald's (outside stimuli. Irregardless, it is a scientific fact that we are chemical systems, meaning that your birth + the state of the outside stimuli= chemical reactions in the brain etc,cause us to react chemically in a certain way, wanting to open the door is in fact a chemical reaction, and since all choices are opinionated they are wanted, they are of chemical origin, not unlimited and free such as free will states. There is a difference between doing and choosing as well, where on can want to choose, one is not always free to choose, there fore unable to enact free will.
Gender equality. If there is a possibility to reach it.

define exactly what you mean by gender, it is no longer a general assumption to think of gender as just male and female. define exactly what you mean by equality. also refine your argument to argue at what expense are woman being treated unfairly. are woman being disregarded in the workplace? as just a more sensitive being and unable to obtain an objective view or hold composure in the midst of a hard decision? are you arguing that woman all around the world, regardless of cultural impacts, are not being treated equal? are you arguing that woman in the united states, Africa, or any other region in the world, regardless of cultural impacts are not being treated equal? are you arguing that woman as a species is not equal to males and that is leading to the reason for the lack of equality? each one can be an argument by itself, refine your argument.
Gender equality. If there is a possibility to reach it.

Basically, I don"t really think that gender equality can ever be achieved for a number of reasons. First of all, inequality of all kinds is something that will always exist. In fact, both genders are not evenly distributed on Earth. I mean the number of men and women living in particular regions is highly disproportionate. For instance, in Asian and African countries the number of male population is considerably higher than anywhere else. Mathematically, the imbalance is dramatic, that"s why we can truly say this gap can hardly be filled up. Secondly, biologically, men and women are different and will remain same different, for as long as women can give birth to children, they will be treated like mothers above all. Women will always be supposed to take care after children for this reason. Although it"s widely argued that women can achieve a so-called work-life balance, I am firmly convinced, that women will always prioritize their family life, if they have such, rather than work, while men will keep on working late hours to provide for the family. In my opinion family issues do distract women from focusing on work, as it has been proven that women are more sensitive and sympathetic. However, these at-a-first-glance weak personal qualities make women better top managers, because the ability to empathize is extremely valuable to understand employees, which is of fundamental importance for managing human resources efficiently.
Women in Combat

Conduct Point and Extension of Case: Since my opponent forfeited the previous round, this means that I'm already winning the argumentation vote since I was able to extend my entire case across the flow, and I'm winning the conduct point because I've been punctual to this debate since round 1. Evidence/Sources: When looking at my evidence against my opponent's, it also seems like I will be winning the sources point in this debate for the following reason: my evidence also comes from the perspective of someone who has been on the battlefield and seen the very things that my opponent himself has seen, but it's reinforced by two things: (1) It comes from the perspective of a woman, meaning that my evidence is more precise for the evalutation of this round since it is more direct and relevant than the perspective of a man. (2) The author from my research has made her own research and concrete detail through citations, meaning that it has accredited information much stronger than my opponent provides anywhere in his case statement. Roles in life: The fact that my opponent brings up the idea that there are roles that men and women are made inherently to fill implies that his logic is that anything deviating from that role is wrong. Essentially what he says in this argument is that if a woman fills some roles outside of her realm according to my opponent's logic is simply wrong. This is pretty much sexism in a nutshell. Physical Standards: My opponent goes on to talk about the physical endurance, and he seems to imply that all women are built unequally as strong as men are, which is also just a sexist idealism. In the military, physical ability is screened individually, as my evidence has proven, and only the elite are chosen as a result in order to fight in the battlefield. Based on my opponent's own statements about women on the battlefield, bringing up examples of female military members that were perfectly capable of battle and based on my evidence talking about the role of the woman in war, it's evident that at some level, there can be women who can perform those physical standards, but to judge their capability based on a generalization is nothing more than sexism at its finest.Unit Cohesion/Fraternization: My opponent brings up points with no evidence questioning the unit cohesion that would result when it comes to love triangles, even though there is no evidence as such according to my own evidence. Second, this seems to be a matter of discpline and self-control rather than a warrant for the need to keep women out. Leadership is needed in this scenario to keep things together, especially when it comes to the deal of protecting the country. My opponent doesn't explain why keeping women out is the only option.Menstruation: The idea that a woman would be so debilitated from menstruation that she wouldn't be able to perform anything on a mission is not only unfounded, but ridiculous. My opponent has no evidence of any sort to say that this would be a serious problem.
Fedoras Should be Outlawed

My adversary claims this is a serious debate, but offers no response as why fedoras should be banned. She also claims that only ska bros should be allowed to wear them, so "innocent bystanders are not constantly assaulted by raging douche bags"The amount of fail in this logic is kind of mind blowing. It hurts my brain to even think that there is a human being that can posses this kind of logic. Her essential claim is this"If you put on a fedora, a magical energy shall posses you to be a raging douche bad so fedoras should be banned to prevent this from happening"Last time I check, a fedora isn't a magical tool to turn people into azzholes. It is a fashion statement. She has the burdenShe is proposing a change in the norm, so the burden of proof is on her. For something to be banned federally there has to be due process and reasons as for it to be banned. A person is entitled to be a douche bag therefore even if we hypothetically where to admit that a fedora posses a magical quality to turn people into douche bags, this is still not reason enough to ban it. Fedoras are just coolWhy the eff would you want to ban a fedora in the first place. Its pretty baller, and pimps where them. If you were my hoe I would give you the hand of justice for even proposing such a thought. ClosingMy adversary has provided no logical reasons as to why fedoras should be banned. If even people who tend to wear them happen to be "douchebags" as she calls them, this is not reason enough to ban them all together. A person is entitled to their own personality and this is not enough evidence to incite a change in what is already in place.Her resolution is not affirmed.
Islamic advertisements on the television.

I can't hope noticing is a bit more sophisticated and political than me. To top it off, he stole my term 'Chocolate-chewing fatsos'. He even stole my fun phrase 'Gargantuan-boned'. I hope this gets me the conduct vote or something, because I'm really peed off.The first mistake that Con makes is that he worries about the issue of money. This debate is about whether this idyllic idea SHOULD be put into action, not whether it can be put into action or whether it should be America's number one top priority.I think it would be good because it would make Americans less racist, which makes everyone happy and people like happiness so I'd be creating a world that everyone likes. Con asks the rather bewildering question: "What makes happiness and coexistence, a potential tenet for survival, important?".Well, Con, I'm glad you asked. You see, if everyone hated each other and never wanted to speak to anyone, we would die as there would be nobody to make babies with. Also, Con claims that television is losing its influence, and that the Internet is better. Maybe we should have them there too, but Con never backs up his point. But everyone knows that old geezers are racists who watch the television, correct?Next, I'd like to unveil my next point. If these adverts were to happen, there are a load of cheesy slogans to be used, such as:Healthy Muslims - Putting the slim back into Muslim!Muslims with good singing voices - Putting the la back into Allah!Muslims who eat healthy foods - Putting the muesli back into Muslim!I wrote some of those myself, by the way. All of these things would make radical racists tolerant of Muslims, who I know from personal experience are good people, not yelling crazy people who blow things up. SummarizationI'd say that I've provided a very good case as to why there should be Islamic advertisements (by which I mean advertisements featuring Muslims, not advertisements in another language, as semantic-loving Con insists on interpreting it as.
Islamic advertisements on the television.

I took a trip to America yesterday, and I was walking behind some gargantuan-boned natives who seemed to be very critical of the muslims in front of them. Although quite hysterical and unusually clever, calling muslims names like "Mad-hatters", "Bush-beards" and "Poo people" came off as quite offensive to a politically correct individual such as myself. These chocolate-chewing fatsos then started rambling on about the two numbers they knew, eleven and nine (although not in that order).When trying to think of a solution to these hilarious racist nicknames, I suddenly thought of television. You can make anyone think/want anything with that nifty gadget. So that's what I want to debate today, whether Islamic advertisements should be used to make Americans more tolerant of muslims. I thank you.
understanding=relation+contrast

This debate=Wylted win Why? Vi_spex has not used capitalization, granting me grammar points. Vi_Spex has not provided premises for his arguments, when he has the burden of proof. Vi_Spex conceded that he agreed with the con position in round 2 Vi_spex used no sources, while I cited David Hume in the first round, winning me source points. Vi_Spex prides himself on losing, and wants the judges to vote for me. I love you Vi_Spex. This was a pleasurable debate
Americans, in general, are idiots

Hi there. The debate format sounds fine. My position is that Americans aren't "idiots" in general, by mere form and function. People from other countries seem to presume that it's inordinately easy to live in the United States. They tend to assume that Americans are babied by the select few that keep this country free, functional, and on the cutting edge. They couldn't be more wrong. The United States is absurdly competitive, ensuring that everyone performs in some capacity. Ignorance and a lack of education are weakness in the United States. I have traveled, and I don't consider the general education and/or knowledge levels I've encountered in people from Europe and Asia significantly different than the average American. There is a different knowledge base, but they're proportionate. Moreover, the examples you present are insignificant to the point of being silly for you to be making such a sweeping generalization. For example, you claim that 4% of Americans believe something preposterous, as though that's supposed to support your argument, and present no proof that this claim is even true. Well, according to Reuters (http://www.reuters.com...), an alarming 40% of Europeans have mental illnesses. In my experience, Europeans also tend to be more posh and self-entitled, while Asians tend to consider themselves more athletically and intellectually superior than those from other countries. They're rather belittling at times, and while Americans can often be rude, they're not often belittling. I mean, if you wanted to draw sweeping generalizations from limited experiences with a small number of Americans and second-hand information, I can just as well say that, at the very least, most Americans can count to three, whereas you cannot, since you claimed that you were going to provide two examples of "dumbness in America," and instead, provided three. Apparently, those from Denmark are even stupider, no?
Americans, in general, are idiots

Hello! Standard debate format for response: Greeting and/or Opening Rebuttal Rebuttal Closing First of all the positing that an alarmingly and - relative to other developed countries - big segment of Americans are morons is, sadly, quite easy to demonstrate. Poll after poll shows that Americans are dumb and uneducated, to the point of where one seriously starts to ponder how America got to be "number one" in the first place. The general knowledge among Americans, in general, are stunningly low, and don"t let me get into geography. I must stress that my thesis is a stereotypical generalisation, that unfortunately has much truth to it, and that far from all Americans are morons. Yes, there are many intelligent Americans, indeed. However, I am arguing that because such a big segment of the population demonstrates such a low general knowledge and outright lunacy, i.e., 1 in 25 Americans believe that lizard people control our government, it is justified to say that Americans, in general, are morons. I think many Americans would agree with me. I think it is also quite ironical that they believe that they are so superior to other countries - not to say the least the caricature that they have made out of the"socialist" Scandinavian countries who, - while in fact Denmark, where I am from, has a higher standard of living and outperform United States on a key number of areas. However, the same idiotic narrative is still disseminated on evangelical church congregations and on FOX news. I am not kidding, once an American woman in her 40"s wanted to know if she needed any vaccine when she was travelling to Sweden. That idiot thought that Sweden was a developing country of some sort! You see my point? I"ll provide you with more examples to bolster my point later on during the debate. Here are two examples of the dumbness that plagues America.
Homosexuality is okay!

Yes. I had found a common ground within your statement above and redirected me some other way. "Love your neighbor as you love yourself" means to treat others kindly and respectfully. The majority of Christians follow this most of the time. The majority of Christians are Christ-honoring, homosexual-respecting, not-gay-bashing people. The rest give Christians a bad name. The Bible does not say "love the sinner, hate the sin". That was a slogan created by Christians. But it is very truthful and, like I said, is mostly followed. "Judge not lest ye be judged" (Luke 6:37) means to condemn someone to hell. The Bible says nothing about not using your head, not knowing what's wrong and not being smart about it. I would hope that Christians would shape up and treat others with respect, regardless of whether they agree or not. For the most part, Christians do this, but there are those that give the group a bad name. Religious fundamentalists, especially Christians and Muslims, will often say that God forbids homosexuality. Some people will say that it is disgusting and unnatural, as to what you were saying. Some people do not have an opinion. The majority of scientific evidence suggests that homosexuality cannot be controlled any more than, for example, eye color. Although the Christian Bible and (I think) the Muslim Koran say "a man shall not lie with a man as he lies with a woman. It is an abomination," there is considerable evidence to suggest that this is because ejaculation that has no chance of resulting in childbirth is considered to be sinful. Certainly, nothing is said of lesbian sex or loving, caring relationships between two people of the same gender, it merely states that sex between two men is "an abomination." Many religious people will quote the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which is supposedly about the destruction of two cities for the sin of homosexuality. These interpretations however, are seen to be incorrect, and those sins were idolatry, rape, and prostitution. It is ridiculous to assume that there were two cities with only gay inhabitants, especially as they would have no children and so the entire population would die off within one generation. Regardless, both books also say "love your neighbor as you love yourself" (twice in the Bible) and the Bible also says "judge not lest ye be judged" and "love the sinner but hate the sin." Therefore, discrimination against gay people is a sin, regardless of whether homosexuality itself is or isn't. Like I had said before, I had found some common ground within your statement before which kind of made my answer a curve-ball.
Homosexuality is okay!

Hmmmm ive noticed your style of writing and vocabulary drastically changed in your second argument and it is suspicious. Yes i do believe that homosexuality was in fact practiced by some during the ancient years, but no matter where you were homosexuality was an abomination and outlawed, punishable by death. The rise and acceptance of homosexuality is the result of societal change and and the pressing of media to influence the younger generation to accept homosexuality. Homosexuality is not caused by genetic orientation. Homosexuality doesn't even make sense in the eyes of an evolutionist which believe in survival of the fittest and the purpose of life is to reproduce and survive. It doesnt make sense for an organism whose meaning to life is survive and reproduce and it practices homosexuality, the species would die off in a matter of a few generations I have researched and i have found that genetic proof homosexuality is actually inconclusive. Yes tests have been done but all said that homosexuality is brought upon by environmental events or influences. This is why homosexuality is naturally wrong that is why for thousands of years humans have shunned the idea because to the primitive minds of humans it is unnatural For an example. A boy who is brought up with homosexual parents will most likely adopt the ideals of homosexuality, also they would not find heterosexuality foreign because heterosexuality is natural to humans or any type of organisms at that matter. A boy who is brought up in a heterosexual family will grow up heterosexual and would find homosexual as an abomination because it is unnatural Your speculation of God as an "loving-god" is very,very obscured. Yes God is loving but he is more than that. God loves gays, god loves all his creations equally. What god hates is sin, he hates that we are sinful and that we commit such terrible sins in his eyes. God is not clay that you can create and morph into your own likes, he is not something that should be underestimated. He doesn't ask us to follow god he orders you. God is like a parent that will always know more than you. He knows what is sin and he calls homosexuality an abomination, a sin To tell people to accept something so vile to them it is not human nature. Just as people try to force homosexuality into peoples reality, we have the same right to do the opposite. Homosexuality is unnatural and is a sin
Homosexuality is okay!

The Bible was written during a cultural period when homosexuality was not in the best interest of the larger group. The Jews were surrounded on all sides by cultures who opposed homosexuality and they were vastly outnumbered. Homosexuality thus could bring down the wrath of the surrounding cultures while potentially reducing the number of births. Such a prohibition made sense culturally at the time. This prohibition no longer makes the slightest cultural sense. Judaism nor Christianity are no longer under threat of being wiped off the face of the earth, the first by the Diaspora, the second by sheer numbers. The health issue is still a potential issue, but we have knowledge of proper hygiene upon which to act. Further, at the time, they could not understand the genetic components of homosexuality. They did not have a concept of genetics. The sin of Onan (spilling one's seed) was considered murder because it was believed that the fully created being existed in the man's seed, and that the woman was simply the oven in which it grew. We now know that there are multiple genetic markers that indicate a predisposition towards homosexuality. So we are left with no choice but to either close our eyes and stick our fingers in our ears and ignore the science, OR, we must accept that God created homosexuals with an intrinsic predisposition towards a whole different kind of sin. This would not be the mark of a loving God. So then. The cultural aspects are null and void as they no longer exist. The assumption that it is sinful despite its genetic basis (and genetic basis in other animals, proving that homosexuality is not 'unnatural') goes against the idea of an all-loving God. Homosexuality is not a sin.