BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This is a good decision.

Let me begin by declaring right now that what is going on in Russia is a travesty, and cannot be condoned. This debate is not about whether or not the deprivation of the LGBTQ community"s rights is wrong or not"because it is categorically and undeniable repugnant"but rather, this debate revolves around the question of how to handle our response to this crisis. Observation: Pro drops my definition of "good." Contention One: Refusing to go to Russia is unhelpful. Protesting by absentia instead of in person is like sending a letter when you could show up in person, the former carries much less weight than the latter. Ultimately, by staying far away, Wentworth remains inherently apart from the conflict, when he should be on the ground and embroiled in it. It is far more impactful for individuals, especially celebrities and world leaders, who wish to protest Russia"s homophobia to actually go to Russia and speak out as a form of civil disobedience. It not only gives them more visibility in Russia, but by being their physically, they lend greater gravitas to their message of tolerance. It shows that they are willing to undergo personal risk in order to speak out on behalf and in support of the LGBTQ diaspora. Contention Two: Civil disobedience is effective and appropriate. Civil disobedience can be explained as when someone conscientiously objects to legislation based on moral or ethical grounds, and, as a result, engages in noncompliance with that law, and peaceably accepts the consequences of that noncompliance. In other words, someone breaks an immoral law to protest that law. This is what I advocate well-known individuals to engage in, as it would be efficacious. Civil disobedience has a clear trackrecord of success that warrants my assertion here. In India, Gandhis stayagraha movement successfully ended British colonial oppression; in South Africa, apartheid was ended; in the U.S., Dr. King made huge inroads into the inequalities of the system. There are even more examples I could cite to illustrate how Civil disobedience could be a powerful tool in the fight against tyranny in Russia. (Source: 2) Ultimately, "power itself is not derived through violence, though in governmental form it is usually violent in nature. Governmental power is often maintained through oppression and the tacit compliance of the majority of the governed"Struggle and conflict are often necessary to correct injustice." (Source: 1) In this case, the struggle must be fought largely within Russia, not without. This requires the well-known to go to Russia, and "propagandize" in violation of Russia"s laws, like Lady Gaga and Madonna did. (Sources: 3 and 4) Thus, I maintain Wentworth"s decision was not a good one. He needed to go to Russia, and then protest there. I await Pro's response. Sources: 1. http://www.actupny.org... 2. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org... 3. http://www.bbc.co.uk... 4. http://www.lgbtqnation.com...
This is a good decision.

Hi! I accept this debate. I am very much a pro-LGBTQ rights individual. Therefore, it is a topic that is very important to me. Personally, I think that instead of boycotting Russian products or events, the best way to combat these laws is through active civil disobedience in Russia. Consequently, the decision to refuse to attend the festival was not a good decision. I will present my opening arguments in round two. I suggest that we define "good" as "producing greatest utility; beneficial. "
catholic r stupid

While my opponent has truly conjured up a masterpiece of an argument, I will have to deconstruct it. I have attempted to segregate my opponent's arguments into semi-coherent sentences, but his unnatural distaste for punctuation has made it quite difficult. Pro writes "Doode hold up maybe ya know I telling you that catholic r stupid cuz religion is too strict" Obviously, this is both a non-sequitur as well as a bare assertion. Being too strict does not make something stupid, and of course my opponent has done nothing more than assert that it is too strict in the first place. Pro writes "boy get some pusqy oh wait catholic bit%hes can't cuz they catholic loser"This is non-topical to the resolution, which my opponent himself set. Pro writes "I win cuz I'm right you have burden to prove its not boom pow fight me"My opponent is trying to shift the burden of proof. I regret that I am unable to oblige his unrelated command. In conclusion, my opponent has done nothing more than try to shift the burden of proof to me, for no apparent reason. I reassert that the resolution is incoherent, and by nature unable to be affirmed.
We should redistribute wealth from the top 1% to the lower-middle class

Counter-Case I: Ambition Pro has dropped half my argument. I brought up that people were less likely to become ambitious if the Government would simply tax it all away (Pro treats 10% as though it's a small amount on top of a substantial percentage already) when they would get paid nicely to just exist in lower classes. My argument about how most of the money couldn't even be taxed was dropped entirely.Counter-Case II: Counter Pro shows that GDP and Unemployment has an adverse relation, ignoring how complicated that relationship is. Pro doesn't realize that adding a variable such as being paid to be poor would discourage high-paying employment, and therefore Unemployment would not increase. Pro mistakes the point of my earlier argument. The bubble economy will be the result of inflation. When the average person suddenly goes from 20k to 50k the value of each dollar plummets. Like printing money.==Unitomic==
We should redistribute wealth from the top 1% to the lower-middle class

Ambition: Con overstates the disincentive that an extra 10% tax per dollar earned will have. Current tax brackets tax at the margin. So once someone reaches the top 1% of earners ($380,000+) only then will they be taxed at an additional 10% per dollar earned. This is a marginal increase that wouldn't scare people away from becoming rich. Counter: Con treats the money that would be spent by the poor as lost money. Not true. Money idle in a savings account is money not distributed throughout the economy while consumption spending accounts for 70% of GDP. More of this money would be spent by the less affluent because they have a higher MPC. More consumption spending = higher demand for goods and services = more business revenue = lower unemployment rate to keep up with demand = higher GDP. Okuns law shows that increases in the unemployment rate and GDP share an inverse relationship [1]. Vote pro & thanks for the debate! [1] http://www.investopedia.com...
We should redistribute wealth from the top 1% to the lower-middle class

Case I: Affect on Ambition. Once the 1% lose their wealth, the next to be targeted would lose theirs. And So on. This would be needed to fuel the bubble economy I mention in the Counter-Case. With the rich being targeted, no one would try to become wealthy, especially since you get paid for being in the lower classes. When you discourage wealth and encourage poverty, the economy suffers greatly.Counter-Case I Pro tells us how increasing the wealth of the poor would increase spending and thus increase economy. In truth it would create a bubble economy, since the poor would not remake the money they spent (unsustainable spending). When the money runs out, the economy crashes. Besides, wealth would just reaccumulate in the hands of the wealthy again. Would we just keep the cycle going? And thus discourage anyone from being ambitious? It doesn't help that much of the wealth of the rich isn't in forms we can tax, such as stock and Real Estate.{1}1] http://tinyurl.com...==Unitomic==
We should redistribute wealth from the top 1% to the lower-middle class

Increased GDPGDP = C + I + G + (X - M) C = consumption spending and accounts for 70% of our economic growth [1]. Thus, the more consumption spending there is in the economy, the higher GDP will be. GDP is the measure of the value of all goods + services produced in the economy in one year.The marginal propensity to consume (MPC) is the concept that an increase in consumption occurs with an increase in disposable income. The ultra rich have a lower MPC than the lower-middle class [2] meaning that for ever dollar redistributed to a person with a higher MPC, more consumption will occur (+C) and result in a higher GDP.By taxing the top 1% at an additional 10% per dollar earned over the existing tax rate and redistributing this money to the less affluent with a higher MPC, more spending rather than saving will occur and GDP will increase.[1] http://m.mic.com...[2] http://web.stanford.edu...
Abortion

I understand what you are saying, however, I feel the best benefit that we may give a child is life itself. There are plenty of people who have grown up in poor conditions and made something of themselves. Abortion is wrong because it never even gives the child a chance. And even if the parents say there doing it so the child wont have to grow up with parents who aren't ready, in all honesty, they are most likely doing it for selfish reasons. Whether you are ready or not, you got pregnant, so that is the time to grow up and deal with it. No matter what the conditions are that he/she will be brought up in, I'm sure they will find their place in the world. In the case of extenuating circumstances, for example, a child who will be born with down syndrome, or other conditions that would seriously inhibit their quality of life, then I feel that abortion is justified. However, if the only worry of the parents is that the child will be raised in unsuitable conditions, then it is not. We, as adults, have an obligation to ensure that the child does grow up in suitable conditions, rather then denying its right to life all together.
Abortion

In my opinion, abortion is morally and ethically wrong, and should be illegal except in the case of extenuating circumstances, (explained later). Abortion being legal only teaches our society that rather then dealing with an accident or mistake, you can simply give some money to a doctor in order to "fix" the problem. Sure, there are arguments that a fetus is not technically a human being yet, and that by aborting it, we are not denying its natural rights to life. But in all honesty, who are we to judge that? Sex, birth, and life are all natural processes, and the more we tamper with them, the worse the consequences could be. I feel that abortion simply makes people lazier. Rather then taking responsibility for what happened, they'd rather deny a potential human being its right to life, because they do not want the responsibility of taking care of him/her.
Abortion

Overall, abortion is not a means to end a life. Abortion is a means to create life at the right time. A child deserves to be born into a proper situation where they can have a great childhood which will lead to a safe adolescence and ultimately increase chances into becoming a successful member of society as an adult. Yes, I agree that is very unfortunate for those who cannot have children; that does not merit parents having children when they are completely unfit for the responsibility.
Abortion

So your'e basically saying that is children aren't born into a family with money, there chances of having a bad childhood is much greater? Also, people living longer due to advances in medicine is a completely separate issue, with completely separate arguments. This notion only further re-iterates our societies arrogance. We feel that since we can potentially be in control of how long we live, or what diseases we can get, that we can be in control of who lives and who doesn't. Abortion isn't an advancement, it only sends our society further down the immoral road that we are on. We have to deal with and accept the mistakes we make, not take care of them at the cost of a human life.
Abortion

Before you can attack the ethical concerns about abortion, you would need to attack all the other ethical isssues regarding the medical profession. People are living longer than intended due to advances in medicine. Abortion is another advancement; it is an advancement in which we give parents and children to choose a better life for themselves. By providing parents with the choice, we are hopefully allowing parents to choose the right time to bring a child in the world. There are too many children being born into violence and poverty. There are too many children without childhoods. I believe these children are born into this because of teen pregnancies and pregnancies impacted by poverty. Although you said people born into poverty can rise up, I believe people born into poverty or a bad childhood will have too many bad avenues in their life.
Abortion

A woman having the right to choose is a god given natural right, however, so is the right to life after conception. Who are we to decide which is more important, and in my opinion, the right to life far surpasses the right to choose. There are some couples who wait for years on adoption waiting lists, so there is obviously not a shortage of parents to take care of these children. Giving your child up for adoption must be difficult to do, however, I can't see how denying its right to live as being easier. Your argument "I believe they are making the right decision for themselves, but also for there child," is not warranted. We have no right to decide that, and we never will. Once the sperm and the egg are joined, it should be completely out of our control. Aborting a fetus is against our natural human rights, and just because a fetus is in-capable of making this choice, does not mean that we can. Our society has grown arrogant, thinking we are in control of everything. Natural processes such as birth are far beyond our grasp, and should not be tampered with. We have to accept that there are just some things that we can not, and should not control. Also, if killing an unborn fetus is considered ethical in our society, what's next?
Abortion

This issue is not about the potential parent, it is about the child that had no choice in their making. If someone was to have an abortion, I believe that person was making the right decision for themselves but also for there child. If a person has too many doubts about having a child then I do not believe they deserve too; furthermore, I do not believe the child deserves a parent that is not prepared mentally, physically and financially to bring up this child with everything they need. My belief of "Pro-Choice" is because I am an advocate for children because that child does not have
Abortion

True, but it is not our choice to decide who lives and who dies, and especially not who never even has a chance to live. We cannot see into the future, therefore we cannot know what kind of life that child will have, we just have to hope for the best. Everyone knows that life is not easy, and abortion doesn't mean we are "saving" these potential children from it. I'm not going to be a hypocrite and say "don't have sex before marriage," because that is no longer the norm. However, if you are going to have sex before marriage, you should know, accept, and be aware of the potential consequences. I feel that the possibility of abortion causes people to make even worse decisions, because its basically telling our society that any problem can be fixed with money. You had sex and you got pregnant, but luckily for you, you don't have to deal with it. Instead, you can just pay a doctor to "take care" of it.
Real atheists have systematic faith

The problem is that I called it systematic?Not a big deal! It is in fact an advantage for your side. See,Systematic: presented or formulated as a coherent body of ideas or principles ; methodical in procedure or plan . Retrieved from Merriam-Webster Dictionary. In what system have you seen these items? Hypotheses Theories Questioning Consensus Are those somehow related to a not proved and accepted explanation like the Big Bang?Kudos! Your atheist faith is indeed, systematic. The weak point of religious faith is not part of your atheist faith: you question your faith which is a luxury Christian believers cannot afford because one of their principles is not to question.I have proved that atheist believe. I am afraid, the comparison of both, atheist and religious faith is subjective, but still a matter of social sciences. Both faiths enhance the understanding of reality, both satisfy our human need for truth, both lack concrete proofs.Well, we are about to finish. I would appreciate you use quotation marks or italics in case you need to quote me, in order to follow the rules.Good luck!
Real atheists have systematic faith

To which position should I reply? You started from scratch by stating, "Definitions of faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something". But you ended by denying countering yourself" trusting something is not the same as "tremendous faith" (of course not, because you'd need to type "tremendously" at the beginning of your phrase). Either way, I would like you to enrich this debate by proposing what created the elements of Big Bang. What was before it and how? ---- My laptop charger is not functional, so I may be unable to reply for the final round. Here goes: This argument is not about the Big Bang. You're distracting the issue. Let's stay on topic. YOU (The Statement 1): "Real atheists have systematic faith" YOU (The Statement 2): "A convinced and thoughtful atheist may have a level of of faith that matches with that of Christians:" This was your argument, to which I reply: Yes, it is true we have beliefs, but you have not proven how they are "systemic". Prove to this audience what this "Belief" is and how it is systemic among "atheists". If you cannot competently demonstrate this, you lose. You also say that we can have "a level of faith that matches with that of Christians". Explain to this audience what you mean by that. Establish for this audience how that level is to be established, measured, and tracked from one atheist to the next and how this is to be compared among atheists to christians? If you cannot demonstrate this competently, there is no argument to be made. You lose. You have still not demonstrated how I have proven you right by pulling out two separate definitions of the word "faith" or how this proves your two statements correct.
Real atheists have systematic faith

To which position should I reply?You started from scratch by stating, «Definitions of faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something».But you ended by denying countering yourself« trusting something is not the same as “tremendous faith» (of course not, because you'd need to type “tremendously" at the beginning of your phrase).Either way, I would like you to enrich this debate by proposing what created the elements of Big Bang. What was before it and how?
Real atheists have systematic faith

YOU: >>"Definitions of faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something"; you said that, not me. ME: You quoted me in your last response. And thus, to keep things consistent, I quoted you "quoting" me. YOU: >>That can't be more right when atheist try to explain the paleogenesis of the universe before the Big Bang, therefore trusting something that can't be proved. ME: You're wrong again, because: 1) I am an atheist. Prove to me that, with "tremendous faith" I believe the Big Bang is true. I do not believe all things are 100% certain in the Universe. I am willing to consider alternate theories to the Big Bang given clear and compelling evidence to do so. You cannot measure or put value on what I believe on, nor can you do this with anyone else. You are making claims about "real atheists" that cannot be demonstrated in any way, shape or form. Thus you are in error, and wrong. 2) Trusting something is not the same as "tremendous faith" or absolute certainty. 3) You cannot demonstrate who these "REAL ATHEISTS" are. YOU: Bonus argument: atheist have faith on the premise that somehow they will die and nothing will happen after (like if somehow they will tell themselves "I was right"). I am not mocking atheist because of this fact; but I am acknowledging the huge faith they build in the form of trust, theories and hypothesis. Faith is as human as language (it is in our genetic code), despite you believe in God or not. ME: You have it backwards. Atheists are a minority of American citizens, whom reject the universally accepted claim of life after death. We reject it because we have no reason to believe that there is life after death. You are wrong.
Real atheists have systematic faith

«Definitions of faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something»; you said that, not me. That can't be more right when atheist try to explain the paleogenesis of the universe before the Big Bang, therefore trusting something that can't be proved.Bonus argument: atheist have faith on the premise that somehow they will die and nothing will happen after (like if somehow they will tell themselves “I was right"). I am not mocking atheist because of this fact; but I am acknowledging the huge faith they build in the form of trust, theories and hypothesis.Faith is as human as language (it is in our genetic code), despite you believe in God or not.
Real atheists have systematic faith

YOU: >>Am I wrong? Actually you just proved me right when you stated, >>"Definitions of faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something". >>How come? ME: You were never clear from the start, so I went and pointed out the two textbook definitions. I also looked at your profile. Based on your previous Christian-subject discussions, I suspected you meant godly faith. YOU: "Real atheists have systematic faith". "In the end: what atheists in the latest centuries have believed, have required tremendous faith... Faith in chaos becoming harmony... Faith in God not being part of this." ME: "Real atheists" do NOT have "systematic faith". The reason: skepticism. It is not possible to have complete 100% trust or confidence in a "system" either.
Real atheists have systematic faith

Am I wrong? Actually you just proved me right when you stated,«Definitions of faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something».How come? Picture this scenario from an atheist point if view:---Hommo Sapiens Sapiens are what they are due to chemical, physical and biological accidents of evolution... Thus, life on Earth is just the consequence of slim odds in cosmic events... Same way, the universe is the vast consequence of the aftermath of Big Bang... But prior Big Bang all properties of time, space and matter, rested for some reason and existed with no supernatural decisions... In conclusion, there are many explanations to the genesis of life and the universe; in doesn't necessarily have to do with a supernatural force...---In the end: what atheists in the latest centuries have believed, have required tremendous faith... Faith in chaos becoming harmony... Faith in God not being part of this.
Real atheists have systematic faith

There are two definitions of faith: 1. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. 2. complete trust or confidence in someone or something. You haven't defined what you are discussing, or even what "systematic faith" means, but I've taken the discussion to mean divine faith in Gods as the context. You are wrong, and here is why. Atheism is a LACK of belief in Gods. So having "faith" in the context of divine belief is preposterous. There is just no clear and compelling evidence.