BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Globalization makes all people become identical to each other

I think that the food or clothes are only the beginning. The process of globalization is taking its turn, and all people are getting involved into this, not even knowing that. And why do I started talking about McDonaldization is because the biggest fast food companies are trying to standardize and homogenize the whole world; as such it is a globalizing force. Of course there are a lot of differences between people all over the world, we all look different, but there are some things that unite all of us. If these things will rapidly grow, then one day we may wake up in a world, where everyone has lost their identity and become the same. There are a lot of languages have disappeared because of the globalization. According to statistics every 2 weeks one language is dying, just because all people start to speak the same language, and forget about their own. It seems clear to me that if people do not stop, or maybe even do not try to stop the process of globalization, it will lead to situation when our grandchildren will live in a world with people identical to each other.
Globalization makes all people become identical to each other

The wearing of traditional costumes or the eating of traditional foods does not mean a loss of cultural identity, and is definitely not a loss of cultural values. First, the traditional costumes/food of a group of people are not what create their culture. A person who identifies with their ethnicity or cultural heritage does not lose that by changing their outfit, or going to a fast food restaurant. Globalization simply allows people the freedoms to look at other cultures. Even within cultures people will dress differently, eat differently. A trip to any capital city will show you a wealth of variety even within that one area, which, if globalization was such a driving force, would not be possible within the same country, let alone the same city.
Globalization makes all people become identical to each other

As the world develops and technologies become more and more effective it is easier to communicate and share each others experiences and cultures, of course it is a big plus for those who have no opportunity to travel or just for those who want to learn more about the world. But the danger is that globalization of Western culture will develop very fast, because it is already happening: no one is wearing traditional costumes, everyone wants to follow the fashion, and the fashion is making people all look the same, same jeans, same shirts and etc. Globalization also influences the cuisine of different cultures and nations. The McDonaldization is spreading all over the world. People are more likely to have the same hamburger on lunch than cook their traditional food. That is why the process of globalization is taking away cultural values and make our world be as copied and than pasted.
religion is false

Religion is true according to wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... And it is mentioned in the dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Religion is not mentioned under the definition of false. http://www.merriam-webster.com... And since information is not real according to Pro, it's impossible to use information to determine whether anything is false. Pro is a shaved, naked goat eating a can and peeing on a weed for all I know. But I cannot prove it true or false since information is not real. Pro is mot real, thus unable to even assert a position as to whether religion, which is not real, is false.
religion is false

A prophecy against Damascus: "See, Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins. (Isaiah 17:1) Old article- Damascus, Syria will someday be completely destroyed and become a "ruinous heap" . . . " "" "The burden of Damascus. """" BEHOLD, """" Damascus is taken away from being a city, "" " and it shall be a ruinous heap""" (This prophecy has not yet been fulfilled ... but it will be fulfilled) "" " (Isaiah 17:1) www.alphanewsdaily.com/Nations%20Syria.html * New article- "Damascus drone footage of Destruction" http://www.aljazeera.com...
Captain Jean-Luc Picard is superior to Captain/Admiral James T. Kirk

This is a one round debate that only allows 3 hours of arguing time. I will stand on the position that Jean-Luc Picard is a better Enterprise captain and is more favorable than Captain Kirk. I stand on this position because it has been shown throughout the Next Generation that Picard is way more of a diplomat than Kirk was, that Picard was a super-smart captain that didn't have to rely on his gut, like Kirk had to, and Picard has the best theme song ever. Kirk never could have inspired anything like this. http://www.youtube.com...
only organ donors should be allowed organ transplants

The "practical stuff" is what ruins this resolution. It is impractical. Pro keeps going back to the idea of being "fair." However many people, through no fault of their own, cannot be organ donors. To bar them from receiving organ transplants is entirely unfair. If our goal is to be fair then this resolution must fall. I can understand not wanting "to make it sound like tit for tat or an eye for an eye" but it is tit for tat. There"s no way around that fact. Those who are willing and able to donate organs are able to receive organ transplants. Those who are unwilling or unable to be organ donors cannot receive organ transplants. That is "tit for tat." Why should a person who is not an organ donor be allowed to receive an organ transplant? Returning to a point I made earlier, I have only one answer to this question: Compassion. Compassion is by its nature unfair, but it is often the right choice.
only organ donors should be allowed organ transplants

there are a lot of practical stuff that would need addressed, like the mentally handicap point where they can"t consent to being an organ donor. i dont mean to make it sound like tit for tat or an eye for an eye... but when it comes down to who should get dibs, why should someone who wasn't a donor get dibs? there's a line of people who want the organs. why should the guy who wasn't an organ donor himself get dibs? he shouldn't... that's not the fair thing to do. if we required people be donors, more people would sign up, and there'd be more organs for people. this would be overall better for that reason. if a person doesnt want to be a donor, why should they get organs when they need em, when others need em? the fitting analogy is a free loader analogy. wanting something free without putting up anything in return. in a system where we donate organs, they aren't contributing at all. that is free rider.
only organ donors should be allowed organ transplants

Well, I was hoping for more of an opening argument from pro than "It"s the only fair way to do things." Still, there are at least two central reasons why we should not limit organ transplants to organ donors. 1. It"s not really fair. Not everyone can be an organ donor. For instance, people with an HIV infection, active cancer, or systemic infection are unconditionally denied from being organ donors. However, modern medicine has made it so that none of these are a death sentence. People can recover from active cancer. With proper medication people can live a full life while controlling an HIV infection. Some systemic infections, such as Sickle cell disease, are inherited illnesses which a person can live with throughout his or her life. However, in each of these cases the individual is barred from being an organ donor. By accepting this resolution we would be saying that someone with such illnesses could not receive an organ transplant even though the transplant would extend the person"s life by many years, and it is not the individual"s fault that he or she is not an organ donor. This is in no way fair. 2. It lacks mercy. Even if the resolution were fair (which have already shown how it is not), it still lacks mercy. Imagine that a fifteen-year-old boy needs an organ transplant but never got around to being an organ donor. Someone might argue that it is "fair" to let him die because he is not an organ donor. However, this reveals a heartless lack of compassion. Fairness has its place, but there times when we should abandon fairness for compassion. This resolution would not allow for that. So, the resolution that only organ donors should be allowed organ transplants is neither fair nor merciful and should be rejected. Source: http://www.organdonor.gov...
Phone Guy faked his death in FNAF (take 2)

Uhh... are you giving up? I know that he must've timed out, so... yeah. I'm sustaining my arguments I have made in the previous rounds, since that's allowed. Also, I watched MatPat's video about Phone Guy is the killer, but I just think otherwise; he said that FNAF 1 is the aftermath of the Bad End of FNAF 3, but I don't think that makes sense, he has the timeline (FNAF 2, FNAF 1, FNAF 3), but then he goes on to say that the timeline goes: FNAF 2, FNAF 1, FNAF 3, then FNAF 1, but Freddy Fazbear's Pizza got closed down forever! Plus, the new timeline says FNAF 1 took place twice! So yeah, I'm just pointing this out to rebut a plausible thing the opponent might add to the final round, not sure if that's allowed, but yeah. The opponent still has to explain himself. What does Foxy have to do with anything? How does Phone Guy know about Fazbear's Fright? Where's Perry?
Phone Guy faked his death in FNAF (take 2)

Why he would "hit" Freddy with the hacking device. I couldn't find how a hacking device works (which is bad, I admit that), BUT I think purple man is plugging in the device, and perhaps he inserted a virus. Plus, you have yet to say how it makes sense to say WHY HE'S ATTACKING FREDDY WITH A PHONE like it sounded like you were saying. Phone Guy knows about Fazbear's Fright? Well, Do you mean the phone calls from Night 1 and the beginning of Night 2 in FNAF 3? If so, that isn't Phone Guy, he has been dubbed "Phone Dude". Which phone call from which game are you saying that gives away that Phone Guy know about Fazbear's Fright? Foxy's Revival. Yeah, they did make Mangle to replace Foxy, since he was too scary. But FNAF 1's building was on a lower budget, so they had to use the withered animatronics for FNAF 1. You can see some kids' drawings of Foxy, so I guess this Foxy was kid friendly enough. Still, you have yet to explain HOW FOXY IS RELEVANT! Fazbear's fright made after ALL buildings? No, it was made after FNAF 1's building, since that building was the last one before Freddy Fazbear's Pizza was forced to close down forever, since all the murders. However, that's irrelevant, I just wanted to rebut as much as I could. Things Pro has yet to explain: You have yet to make arguments rebutting my arguments, it's just rebutting a rebuttal. (And I know that might be a good idea, but come on! Explain your arguments!) Also, you keep bringing up Foxy the Pirate Fox, why? I don't see how Foxy is relevant, but that may or may not just be me. Also, why do you claim Phone Guy knows about Fazbear's Fright? Also, how does it make sense for Purple Man to stab Freddy with a phone? Because that looks exactly like what he's doing. You have 2 more chances to make arguments proving what you say is valid. Maybe even use it in the format I decided to use in this round. Don't keep trying to rebut my arguments (I don't mean to say "let me win"), and tell me what's on your mind. Tell me how your arguments hold water. Sites I used: Phone Guy's and Phone Dude's calls: http://freddy-fazbears-pizza.wikia.com... You might have to click "FNAF 3" to get to said calls, but you can also look at the other calls from the other games.
Phone Guy faked his death in FNAF (take 2)

Ok if he programmed them why would it look like he is hitting with them with it, and Foxy was was even more withered in the second than he was in the first and then for some reason they made him again according to you but why would they do that nobody knows they just did it for no reason Phone guy knows there was the third games building even though it was made 30 years after both buildings that don't add up either. does it!
Phone Guy faked his death in FNAF (take 2)

Why would Purple Man use a hacking device to attack Freddy? So he could reprogram the animatronics of course! And FNAF 2 is a prequel to FNAF 1, there's proof of this in various locations. Also, to explain why Foxy was in FNAF 1's building, they used the withered animatronics from FNAF 2 (the animatronics that were in the building before FNAF 2 takes place and after Fredbear's diner got shut down). And the scream you're talking about must be Golden Freddy's, which was the only scream in the call, and Phone Guy's voice is high pitched, listen for yourself. And Golden Freddy's scream is very low pitched, compared to Phone Guy's high pitched voice, it doesn't really add up. A high pitched voice to a low pitched scream (actually, it's more like a yell) it's not that easy, so how did Phone Guy pull it off? Still, I still claim that it makes no sense for someone to attack freddy with a phone, saying Freddy can't 'SAVETHEM'.
Phone Guy faked his death in FNAF (take 2)

I do know you were in that argument so that made me look bad, but anyway the way he could have faked his death is because If you notice it is very easy mimic the scream. The way foxy is there is because he adds to the fact that the first games building was made first, and if it was a hacking device why would he hit them with it also if you notice in the 7th night when you are the one guy (forgot name) you don't get a phone call.
Phone Guy faked his death in FNAF (take 2)

Ok I also say the phone guy is spring trap because 1. he has a security badge 2. we he the purple guy attacks the antimatronics he holds something like a phone. In the first game he said he is a security guard too. Also he died is spring trap In the second game he says Foxy was thought to be to scary so why make him again if the first games building was there after the second games building.
Phone Guy faked his death in FNAF (take 2)

I challenge Levitation to this arguement about whether Phone Guy from FNAF faked his death. I use the argurments that Shrek_sDrekid used: It's accepted that Phone Guy's dead, it being impossible to imitate the sounds perfectly, since the tape recorders had terrible quality so he couldn't record the sounds like that, and that he has no solid reason to fake his death. What do you have that says otherwise?
On balance modern Feminism is beneficial to the modern United States.

Thanks very much for challenging me to this debate!I probably should have clarified in our conversation, but we should both be able to agree that when we refer to Feminism, we are implying the movement - actions of others based on this belief. I'm sure everyone can agree men and women should be treated equal, but it would be up to you to prove they currently are not treated equally, and one gender is treated as inferior; given less opportunities for schools, jobs, etc. My side of the argument is that we do have equal opportunities and we are treated equally - this means we can have practically any job, and the very few jobs that the majority of one gender dominates, there are equal jobs for the opposite gender to dominate in. Same goes for school classes and such.Hopefully we can agree that when we talk about feminism, we aren't only referring to the idea that men and women should be treated equally, but actions of others influenced by feminism and movements aided toward achieving "equality."Looking forward to a good debate!
On balance modern Feminism is beneficial to the modern United States.

Resolve:On balance modern Feminism is beneficial to the modern United States. 1: Feminism: “the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities”(1)2: Benificial: "producing good or helpful results or effects : producing benefits."(2)4 Rounds, 10,000 Characters, 72 hoursRound one: acceptanceRound two: opening argumentsRound three: RebuttalsRound four: Final Rebuttals and closing Statements (no new arguments)Thank you Mister_Man for agreeing to this debate. Good luck to you!Burden of proof on pro. (me)(1)http://www.merriam-webster.com...(2)http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The user known as Rice should be my DDO girlfriend.

My ApologiesI must apologize to WallStreetAtheist for forfeiting my last round. I sincerely apologize, it is simply inexcusable for me to have wasted one of my handsome opponent's precious rounds, it was simply inconsiderate. As our round forfeitures demonstrate we are both fallible human beings. Once we recognize this, we can grow together. My ConclusionAfter thinking long and hard about this, I have reached the obvious conclusion that I have foolishly been ignoring. I simply cannot deny it any longer and I must face the truth. I recognize the fact that both WSA and I are incredibly sexy. We share the correct political outlook. Therefore we would create many beautiful libertarian children who would, as my lovely opponent phrased it, "diligently take over the world and leave everyone alone". I can no longer deny this would make both me, and obviously WSA, happy. Nor can I hide behind philosophical warrants when the truth is intrinsically apparent, that happiness is good. Now, in summary, my honey bun, buttercup, cutie pie, lover boy, stud, sweet pea [known to you all as WSA] should indeed be my boyfriend. Now everyone, enjoy this beutiful picture of our future together <3 (and don't worry, there will be more children) picture created by Heineken
The user known as Rice should be my DDO girlfriend.

A good deal of thanks should be awarded to this beautiful sun goddess for her intriguing response. However it must be pointed out that this paradigm of beauty and intelligence is wrong on this occasion and I shall undertake to show why here. Suffering: affirmation vs. avoidance. Since Con accepts that being my DDO girlfriend would result in more pleasure than not doing so, I need only affirm that it is best to choose the course of action which produces more pleasure or show that affirming suffering is incoherent. (1) Con contradicts her beautiful self in affirming what she claims to oppose. The affirmation is of the avoidance of suffering and it lies in the very root of all action. Man acts, that much is certain. And when man (or seductive beauties like Con) acts on their free will, they always implicitly act towards some preference. What are Con's preferences? We can't know all of them. But one of them at least is to argue here. We can know this since she acted on her own volition to do so. If she didn't want to she wouldn't have. But since she did, she acted on a preference which we can presume would cause her discomfort (aka suffering) if she hadn't. This isn't just an isolated example, it applies to any course of action. Drinking orange juice affirms our preference for quenching our thirst. Working out affirms our preference for being fit. Any preference acted on by our will essentially affirms non-suffering to suffering. Therefore, Con's argument is conceptually contradicting in any form. (2) A similar point may be brought up in regards to the contradicting concept of "affirmation of suffering". Isn't suffering something that we disdain or hate? In what sense though an we ever affirm it without relegating it to something other than suffering? I contend that to affirm suffering is to change it completely into something which we wouldn't recognize as suffering at all. (3) Con has also made an existential claim which she failed to back up. I refer specifically to her claim that the world is essentially suffering. Suffering of non-suffering cannot be essential to the world itself since they're predicated on our own values. But if this is the case then why can't we just re-structure our values to affirm more pleasure than suffering? Why not accept things we cannot change (essential see of suffering I deny as such of course) and seek to change the things we can? This would appear a more beneficial, plausible, and worthwhile course of action than losing ourselves in the acceptances of suffering.
The user known as Rice should be my DDO girlfriend.

Just follow the format, play along, learn as you go, and have fun while you're doing it! We're Both Sexies. http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...Both Rice and I are extremely attractive individuals, and would most likely look wonderful as a pair. Similarly attractive people with good energy tend to look good together. WSA and Rice are similarly attractive people with good energy. ------------------------------------------------------------------WSA and Rice would likely look good together ;)Great Conversationalist and ListenerMany DDOites can attest to the fact that I am a great listener and conversationalist. One of the most important things women look for in a relationship is a man who will listen to her problems, understand them, and if the situation requires it: offer help. I love long conversations on the phone, skype, and IM. I have an arsenal of interesting conversation games and techniques to make any old chat fun and interesting. Power CoupleRice and I will become the power couple of DDO, quite easily surpassing PopCulturePooka + tulle and thett3 + RoyalPaladin. With the extraodinary combination of our looks, intelligence, and drive, we could create a race of super-libertarian-children who will dilligently take over the world and leave everyone alone. Women, nay people, are attracted to the allure of power, and following the path of least resistance as a charming power couple is an excellent option for us. I was Rice's first crush / HumorIn the Debate. org forum thread entitled "Who's Your DDO Crush *" : At 1/24/2013 10:35:47 PM, Rice wrote:: I don't know many people here yet :( but Wallstreetatheist has had quite a few amusing posts. . http://www.debate.org... Boom. Another reason Rice should be my girlfriend is as follows in the syllogism:People should pursue to a great extent what they are attracted to. Pursuing people in a relationship to a great extent involves becoming girlfriend/boyfriend. Rice is attracted to Wallstreetatheist. ----------------------------------------------Therefore, Rice should become Wallstreetatheist's DDO girlfriend. She also thinks I'm funny, which is a great plus human interaction in general. Conclusion Rice should become my DDO girlfriend for the aforementioned reasons. She's attracted to me, we both are cuties, I can make her laugh, I'm a great listener, and in general great boyfriend material. Your move, beautiful.
The user known as Rice should be my DDO girlfriend.

Rules:(1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access. (2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate(3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion. (4) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. (5) Try not to be so adorable all the time. Rounds:(1) Acceptance (2) Main Argument(3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument(4) Response to rebuttal + closing arguments + voting issues (one paragraph)Definitions: Rice: This girl--> . http://www.debate.org...DDO Relationship: It's like a relationship, but on DDO with a humorous, flirty quality. Burden of Proof: I haz the burdens of proof! I can typing! By accepting this debate you accept the rules, definitions, and BOP. Kittens!