BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It"s time to establish a national homeland for homosexuals

Pro's argument appears sound on the surface, but that's it: it is a superficial argument and I will deconstruct it more visciously than a red neck appearing on "What Not to Wear"[1].Pro's research is limited to the US. What Pro proposes is an international affair. It is clear, from a mere glance, that Europe and former European colonies is where same sex tolerance is at[2]. The national homeland should be there.Pro considers only existing demographics. In the creation of a Jewish homeland, we didn't look at where they were at that point, but where they wanted to go. This dovetails into my next point:Who the fvck wants to live in a desert? Not gays; with all of their exercising they need their hydration.So where to put them? We need to put them in a place with water that is also visually appealing. That place is London.Everyone already knows about the famous rainy weather in England, so the hydration part is covered. What about the visual appeal? Well, take a look at this:http://www.standard.co.uk...Apparently phallic buildings are taking over the London Skyline, much to the chagrin of its inhabitants. The solution is clear: they get out, and the flamers move in.[1] http://www.tlc.com...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
It"s time to establish a national homeland for homosexuals

Wherever they have gone the Jews have always been widely despised and persecuted. Finally, after millions of Jews were murdered in the Holocaust, on 10th May 1948 a Jewish homeland was created for them in Palestine. They called this new Jewish state Israel and the country now serves as a safe haven for oppressed Jews from around the world. Like Jews, homosexuals are also widely despised and persecuted and, also like Jews, many gays ended up in Nazi gas chambers during the Second World War. So why isn't there a homeland for homosexuals? Don't queers deserve their own sovereign state where they can live free from prejudice and oppression just as much as the Jews deserve their homeland in Palestine? Of course they do, the only question is what to call it and where it should be located. Israel was created in a location that was already home to many Jews and it would make sense to locate a homeland for homosexuals somewhere that is already home to a large number of gay men and lesbians, but where would that be? In the USA, the state with the highest number of same-sex couples is California with 92,138 (North Dakota has just 703 such couples) and the major metropolitan city with the highest concentration of gays is San Francisco, California with 15.4%. (1) Moreover, California is huge: covering 155,959 square miles it is the 3rd largest state in America. Meanwhile, neighbouring Nevada covers 109,826 square miles and, as such, is the 7th largest state in the USA. (2) Despite its huge land area, with 236 people per square mile, California is still the 11th most densely populated state in the USA, but neighbouring Nevada has a population density of just 24 people per square mile, making it the 42nd most densely populated state. Moreover, the population of California is concentrated in the coastal areas.(3) So the ideal location for the new homeland for homosexuals would be partly in present-day eastern California and partly in what is currently western Nevada, though the exact boundaries would be a matter for further discussion. Of course, this new state should be completely independent of the United States of America but it should still be founded upon democratic principles and, to this end, I duly propose the creation of a new homeland for homosexuals in the southwest of North America to be known as the American Independent Democratic State. Thank you. (1) http://facts.randomhistory.com... (2) http://www.worldatlas.com... (2) http://www.worldatlas.com...
It"s time to establish a national homeland for homosexuals

Acroynm:I'm sure Pro doesn't want to get into another debate with me about amelioration of previously negative terms, so I'll just note that we can create whateve acrynom we wish.Overcrowding:Europe has higher population density than America. Yes, I concede the point. It is overcrowded! How shall we deal with this? Why not flood it with naturally infertile couples who will lower the rate of population increase while, at the same time, erode the foundation of traditional marriage which is the cause of the overcrowding to begin with!Location:I'll agree that London isn't ideal. However, what we have here is a clash between what London provides naturally (scenery) and what the gays can infuse London with once they are settled there (better food and dental hygiene). With the risk of skin cancer, no one gets "natural" tans no-a-days. Everyone uses articial tanning, and there is no reason why gays should be any different. Besides, England has beaches!Lesbians:Say what? I think Pro has fallen for the myth that lesbians exist. They don't[1]. Lesbianism is merely a front for a more insidious perversion: bisexuality. Unlike heterosexuals and true homosexuals, bisexuals are greedy. They aren't content with having half the entire population of the planet as there dating pool - they want both sides. They need no "homeland" since all the world, literally, is their oyster, metaphorically.Conclusion:I think it goes without saying that London is the prime choice for a homosexual homeland. The only drawback here is the fact that when someone in London asks for a "pack of f@gs" it's going to be an interesting conversation.[1] http://www.landoverbaptist.net...
Ban muslims

Well, You"re very mature aren"t you? You clearly did not take the time to consider my view, Just expected me to believe you. Writing my answer was a waste of time, As this clearly wasn"t a serious debate. And about the fact that "nobody wants to be a Muslim", I have multiple friends who would say otherwise. So maybe think about what you"re saying before you say it, And don"t generalise like that next time.
Ban muslims

Ok, I"m not really sure why I accepted this debate, Because I really don"t see how this would affect us positively. It is very unaccepting to say that Muslims should be banned, Because some people really rely on this religion to live their life. You said "they can"t escape Islam", Which I understand is relevant to some Muslims. Yes, I agree that they should have a safe option if they want to leave their religion, Because everyone has the right to that, But everyone also has the right to believe what they want. I"m not an expert, But I"m pretty sure the majority of Muslims are happy where they are - certainly my friends who are. Banning Muslims would just cause more conflict, And it would never be able to completely eradicate Islam totally. I"m not sure what your beliefs are, But I"m sure if you were a part of a religion and someone said they wanted to ban it, You wouldn"t agree, Right? But anyway, That is my opinion, And I eagerly await your response. P. S. Sorry, What does apostacy law mean? This isn"t an argument, I genuinely don"t know what it means! Sorry 😂 Thanks
morality=survival+truth

Morality: "Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour" The topic of this entry is not"at least directly"moral theory; rather, it is the definition of morality. Moral theories are large and complex things; definitions are not. The question of the definition of morality is the question of identifying the target of moral theorizing. Identifying this target enables us to see different moral theories as attempting to capture the very same thing. In this way, the distinction between a definition of morality and a moral theory parallels the distinction There does not seem to be much reason to think that a single definition of morality will be applicable to all moral discussions. One reason for this is that "morality" seems to be used in two distinct broad senses: a descriptive sense and a normative sense. More particularly, the term "morality" can be used either 1.Descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behaviour 2. Normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons. Which of these two senses of "morality" a theorist is using plays a crucial, although sometimes unacknowledged, role in the development of an ethical theory. If one uses "morality" in its descriptive sense, and therefore uses it to refer to codes of conduct actually put forward by distinct groups or societies, one will almost certainly deny that there is a universal morality that applies to all human beings. Be it a primitive instinct or a instinct one makes entirely on their own behalf, morals differs between person, so I ask you to rephrase what you meant by "truth".
morality=survival+truth

Knowledge is a truth, whereas a Belief is a lie? But you see, as I do not know what you mean by a belief, I shall just assume you meant beliefs in general: to which I disagree. Many, many theories are just plain assumptions, or 'beliefs' if you will. These beliefs were formed around ideas, they were formed by men of science, men who have dedicated their lives to 'knowledge'. And if these beliefs are lies, and knowledge is truth -- then tell me, what are the makers of these theories - liars, or men who are incapable of lying? Please further expand upon what you meant by beliefs, so I can rewrite my argument.
morality=survival+truth

knowledge is opposite of belief, knowledge is truth, truth is unchanging, like math dosnt change truth=math=intelligence=machine=memory=death=darkness=black=negative=morality=past truth can only be in the past to say there is a difference to truth is like saying there is a difference to math.. where as 1+1 dosnt equal 2..but this is not the case on the standard level use of math.. truth is unchanging, if there were multiple truths then i might as well have gotten into this seat from my car as by walking by the same time.. which cant be the case, i have 1 body
Speed bumps should be installed in the sky to slow down planes.

1) As planes fly through the air, they touch nothing solid during flight. Ergo, they cannot go over a speed "bump" making the resolution meaningless as it is something that cannot be done.2) Air traffic is strictly controlled by air corridors which regulate planes to certain lanes during flight. Since air traffic is so tightly regulated by air traffic controllers speeding is not a problem and therefore does not require speed bumps. If you are in an air corridor without permission you do not have the right of way and cannot complain about dangerous air traffic. 3) Pro gives no concrete reasons or methods as to why or how these speed bumps should be installed or used.4) The sheer volume of airspace makes any type of "speed bump" nearly inconceivable as a plane could fly around, over, under etc any type of obstacle they encounter. Perks of flying. Therefore, speed bumps for planes are both unneeded, stupid, and impossible.
Speed bumps should be installed in the sky to slow down planes.

Whenever I attach paper wings onto my bicycle through the use of cellotape and start flying into the air, I always find that I almost get hit by a speeding plane. Despite the fact that I have let go of at least five balloons designed to look like a road sign that says "20" on it over the years, these pesky planes still seem to not have got the message.Air traffic is a much bigger problem than regular traffic for two very important reasons. The first is that you can't just stop in the sky because if you do, you fall down. The second is that the people who are rich enough to travel in the air are much posher, ergo their lives are much (x3) important.But it's not just speeding planes that annoy me whilst I'm in the air. These are the over things that wind me up:- Birds that dive in hoping to snatch some of the snacks that I hide in my helmet- Clouds in general- The Sun (sometimes when I get lost and find myself in the face of the sun, it can get a bit hot)- Balloons people let go of (every balloon that someone in the world lets go of eventually pops in my face)Seeing as my trips usually last over half a day, when you consider how many active planes there are at one time [1] and how many of them are likely to be speeding (100%), you can't really help but be on my side.Thank you.Sources[1] http://www.flightradar24.com...
Speed bumps should be installed in the sky to slow down planes.

Hello, Con! Thank you for joining me in this debate.Refutations and salutations Part 1: The salutationsHello, Con! Part 2: The refutations 1) Planes can go over a speed bump. If you put them at the right height the plane is supposed to be at so the plane gently skims over them, they should work. Making them go at the right height is very important as when I'm not in flight with my bicycle, I'm on the ground like any other animal on Earth and quite often a plane will be going so low it will hit me. Usually whilst I'm in the workplace. Either that, it goes so high that it drifts off into space never to be seen again. So, the speed bumps will ensure that planes are flying at the right height because the planes will look out for them and make sure to go over them.2) But I'm not just talking about me, I'm saving birds and clouds too!3) That's an easy one. There's lots of ways to install them:i. Attach a long pole near to the top of the eiffel tower and put a speed bump on top of said pole. (This isn't the best way)ii. Coat each speed bump with a fine layer of Osmium (the toughest metal known to man) [1] (this will happen beforehand in every method), and fit every speed bump with an interior motor, viable to contact wirelessly and send surges of energy. This will be a renewable energy source, something like solar or wind (this step will also happen beforehand in every method). This should be possible since scientists have been able (since 2012) to teleport photons of light [2]. This, in essence, is what solar power is. So, we know exactly how they'll work, now all we need to do is know how to install them. A way to do this is attach a load of helium balloons to the speed bump in the place with the same x coordinate as the lpace where the speed bump needs to go. Then, through live satellite coverage, we alter the energy in such a way that leaves the speed bump stationary (this should be possible considering we can already extract energy from light) [3]. Here is a diagram to help explain: 4) What we do here is make not going over (the way a car goes over a speed bump, obviously) a speed bump in the air illegal, add a sensor in/around the speed bump and make a note of all flights currently active and the pilot on each plane (via computer), and then any plane who doesn't pass over the speed bump as it should will have its pilot punished for breaking the law.Thank you.Sources[1] http://www.webelements.com...[2] http://www.forbes.com...[3] http://www.upenn.edu...
know=physical experience

I will use the same formatting as last round. "know=am not can" I do not follow what you're saying, but it disagrees with the initial claim know=physical experience. "yes then truth is in the past, you dont like mayonaise" But I presently do not like mayonnaise either. And I consider it knowledge that I won't like it in the future. "knowledge is not physical experience" Roll credits, guys. Pro just blatantly claimed the opposite of his position. "a blind man cant see. ." I never claimed he could. "math is equal to physical experience on the level awarness, but matter is the opposite of information. ." I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say here, but it seems contradictory. If information is the opposite of matter, and math is a form of information, would that not make it non-physical? "cant do math without your senses, answers are not imaginar" Sure you can. I could go take a trip to a sensory deprivation chamber right now and I could still do math. This is easily refuted. "knowledge is non physical or mental" Warrantless claim as far as I can tell. "without sense to begin with you would never exist at all" A block of plastic exists. It has no senses. Easily refuted. therfore cogito ergo sum is non sense. . there is no life in my imagination You've seemingly worded this as a conclusion. I will let my rebuttals to your above propositions show that this conclusion can't stand. "no you could have no knowledge of what you do not sense" Merely restating contradiction.
know=physical experience

know=am not can yes then truth is in the past, you dont like mayonaise knowledge is not physical experience a blind man cant see.. math is equal to physical experience on the level awarness, but matter is the opposite of information.. cant do math without your senses, answers are not imaginar knowledge is non physical or mental without sense to begin with you would never exist at all therfore cogito ergo sum is non sense.. there is no life in my imagination no you could have no knowledge of what you do not sense
know=physical experience

can a blind person know what is on a picture i am showing him? knowledge is truth, truth can only be in the past.. know is true i obtain knowledge from logical constructs.. but i have no knowledge without my senses to begin with. i dont know the looks of 1 unseen, like a man born blind dont know rainbows it isnt a case against "experientialism" because math dosnt make matter... just because you solved an equation dosnt mean it pops into reality, 1 dragon on your head+a dragon with a dragon hat=dragon on your head with a dragon hat a blind man cant see... a blind mans sense is not of colors and light machines cant tell me what is real, only what to believe
Abortion

I am against abortion, it is an unhealthy choice. It damages women's bodies and later on in life if they decide that they do happen to want children, there is a major possibility that they can not have a child, because of the previous damage caused from the abortion. There are many great families around the world that are willing to adopt. Murder is a crime, so shouldn't abortion also be a crime, because in both cases a life is being taken away from another person. If a murder gets the death penalty or life in prison for killing someone, why is abortion any different because of the victim's age . Many people always bring up the depressing stages they will go through, and honestly they are right to a certain extent. Although it is a fact that if the adoption parents are honest from day one about their adoption the child won't have as big of a problem with it because they won't feel lied to their entire lives. People also say that they will take their lives after being depressed for a certain amount time, well in that case that is a life lost anyways. so why not let them live a happy life and if they begin to fall into depression, then someone can get them as much help as possible, before it becomes a serious matter. There have been times that the fathers of the babies want their partners to have the babies because they will take full custody of them, but the female has an abortion anyways because it is her body, but you have to realize that it took two people to create this child. A majority of women regret it later. So, why take a life that doesn't belong to you?
Animal Testing should be allowed

For your arguments. Now I will try best to counter it. " A good deal of people would say that so many animals are being killed in animal research but it isn't realised that animals are used in the food industry as well. " Well, As my worthy opponent says that a good deal of animals are used in the food industry, Pro, fails to realise that food industry is a high breeding industry too and no harm to the subsistence of animals is done in this industry. Does it mean that people are killing plants ruthlessly and causing extinction of wheat and rice plants? No. That is called agriculture and rearing animals for commercial purposes is called animal husbandry. (1) (1)en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Animal_husbandryR06; " If we stop animal testing the human race would wipe out; and because of this human beings wouldn't be able to keep control of the reproduction of animals, leading to many of them dying for their own record! " And nothing will happen to the population of the animals? A common example of what animal testing leads to is the situation of the Tokay gecko. (2)(3) (2). http://www.dw.de... (3)www. tokaygeckos. org/tokay-gecko-fact-sheetR06; What happens is that when a species of animal is thought to have some medicinal cures, it is researched upon. slowly, the demand of this species grows and people come to know about it. Frequently, these species are found in areas which are full of poor people. Catching these animals and supplying them to buyers gives a lot of money. So, everyone follows the rule of catching these animals and selling them for money. This happens recklessly and the population of these animals go down in a constant rate leading to their extinction. Tokay Geckos are researched on to find an HIV cure. While Top scientists say that it is in vain. Many have taken this research as a hope to find a cure. .. some for the welfare. .. and some for the money. The greed to earn money is leading to the extinction of beautiful animals. Think about it. If Human beings have fundamental rights, should the animals also not have some basic rights? At Least the right to LIVE? Tiger was first hunted as a game, gradually the GOVT. took steps. Later, they were researched on. GOVT. scientist said that tiger doesn't contain any medicinal factors and research on them was banned but is the tiger safe today? Nope. People who believe that tiger can be used to cure cancer are still researching on them by illegal means. Poachers are still prevalent. Tiger reserves are proving to be useless. The count of tiger in the whole world is >3200! ! In such situations, should animal testing be actually allowed?
Animal Testing should be allowed

Firstly, I thank con for accepting my challenge, and would further like to state some reasons. Good Luck! :) 1) A good deal of people would say that so many animals are being killed in animal research but it isn't realised that animals are used in the food industry as well. The number of animals used in the food industry are countless comparing to animal research. People would approximately ear thirty sheep, five cows, six-hundred chickens in addition to thirty pigs in a lifetime whereas only three mice and one rat would be used in one humans lifetime due to animal research. In addition to all of this there are vegetarians in the world, including myself. The food industry uses more animals than the insignificant amount that animal research does and people don"t even think about the sum that the food industry uses. Animal research benefits more people using less animals and the food industry uses more animals and only helps non-vegetarians. Would you rather satisfy your hunger, in which there are other alternatives, or would you rather save millions of lives, in which there are no alternatives that are appropriate? 2) It is a fact that animals sometimes do get harmed and possibly killed from animal testing, but if it hadn't been for animal testing the dreaded human race would have died out in the present climate. Numerous people have died from heart failure, liver failure, diabetes and even throat infections! If animal testing continues then more people would be saved. By all means animals are vital to us as we use them in the food industry, and other general labour. If we stop animal testing the human race would wipe out; and because of this human beings wouldn't be able to keep control of the reproduction of animals, leading to many of them dying for their own record! Thus, if there wasn't any animal testing humans and animals both would die for their own record, eventually. Thank you. :)