BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You choose the topic

All of these topics are pretty blatantly skewed. I feel like if I were to have a debate on any of them with Con the round would be both frustrating due to the polarizing nature of the topics, as well as lack any kind of entertainment value. Con knew what kind of debate this was coming in. He notes the brevity of the debate at the top of his first round as well as in the comments section to me directly. Marriage equality is law in the US, the only ground for argument is an ethical one or an otherwise thinly veiled political one. Women deserve to have autonomy of their own bodies, the only ground for argument here would be a personal moral one to which anyone's opinion isn't going to be swayed through the course of a 3-round, 3,000 character debate. Legal scholars with far more understanding of these topics than either of us have hashed through these subjects in meticulous detail for centuries, there is no ground we are going to make in a debate this short that hasn't been made already. Something like is to be expected from time-to-time whenever I give my opponent the opportunity to chose the debate topic while also having final say in the round. What Con does with the his final topic however is what makes me decide to reject a topical debate in favor of a broader framework discussion. You are going to end up voting Pro in this debate, and I will not have to say a single a word about any of the topics Con has presented in order for you to do so. When Con presents two skewed topics that have been beaten to death, I can overlook those and chose whatever third topic he has lined up. But on that third topic, Con suddenly decides that he wants to be pro rather than con. That isn't fair to me, the language of the topics make it so that Pro would have an inherent advantage on that kind of resolution which would be my only ground for an equitable discussion. I say explicitly in the introductory round that I want to have a fun debate. What I do no want is to regurgitate the same talking points on a polarizing subject that we wouldn't even be able to make any progress on. I get that working through these discussion can be important for people still trying figure out where they stand on the matter, and debate should be a safe place to have those kinds of discussions for the sake of identity formation - but dear god there is a time and a place. Con has already had all of these debate several times. There is at least one instance of each of these topics on the first page of his most recent debates alone[1]. In giving me these topics, Con was neither trying to break new ground or have an identity forming discussion. I don't know what he was trying to do. [1] http://www.debate.org... For the sake of shaping better debate in the future, it's important to use your vote to make a statement. If we want to have contentious debate, we need to give them the depth they deserve - if we want to have light debates, we need to chose light topics.
is it ok to help homless people

Firstly, you said that it is useless and we shouldn't help homeless people. Of course, I agree with you that there are some homeless people who can steal something, but is not out of desperation they do it? Yes, they survive and they work. I don't say about all homeless people who just sit and ask for money, but even among them there are some people who haven't not only home, but legs, arms or they are blind. It isn't their fault, it is thier fate. And what do you suggest to do such people? Secondly, I agree with you that they should earn money themselves, they know its value, the tase of it, but is it so hard to help the smallest that you have in order to improve the lives of those in need? We couldn't undersand them never, because we grown up in convenient conditions and we don't know what the poverty and homeless is. And who knows what would happen with us if we were in such situation? And finally, I want to say that we shouldn't be so categorical, it is life and we are all human beings, it is better to help and support people in need, helping others you help yourself first and foremost.
is it ok to help homless people

First, they are not forced to work at all, it is their personal life and if they want to survive they have to work somewhere good instead of sitting only begging for money. they have also two legs and two hands like us. we are not special from them we also human beings like they are. And it also would be better for them if they earn money with their own hands. because for everyone it is good their own money which has earned so , they know the value of it, the hardship of it, the taste of it. But I don't mean that we should ignore them at all, maybe there are some real people that is not help, in this condition we also can help them. it is not difficult helping them actually I see,but do you know that how kind of people they are ? They might have killed somebody or stole something and so on. So you see that there are results that is making us think about how they turned this situation and how it would be like if we help them by giving money. Besides, according to the article that I have read most of them are pretending to be homeless and earning great deal of money. In reality they have brand new car and shining home.
is it ok to help homless people

And who says about spending all your money and time to homeless people? I don't say that we should help them all the time. Believe me, that even if you provide them with your old clothes or something that isn't necessary for you it will be enough. We are lucky people, because we have more chances to be successful people in future, we have a great opportunity to study in university, take education and use them in our future jod. It is because since childhood we did not care about the place, where we live, about food and clothes. All these things were our parents' responsibility. And now think about homeless people. Since shildhood they are forced to work, I can even say that they do not live, but just survive.
is it ok to help homless people

I do not quite agree with your position. It is not useless, helping needy people you maybe save their lives. And what is your priceless time? You have this time, because of your parents, who provided you with home, money, food, clothes. You have all necessary things. And now just imagine, what would be if you had not money, home, if you forced to work every day from morning till night in order not to starve?
Animals are inferior to humans

"I will now use this round to address and deconstruct Pro's points, as he directs his arguments towards me." Con I'm directed my arguments at your argument. Noting that you relied heavily if not entirely on science. I don't know about everyone else, but I'm sick of everything being explained in terms of science. Its not the end all be all. There is so much science has not explained. In fact, I'm pretty sure its scientifically proven that the sum of all human ignorance is greater than the sum of all human knowledge. How far have we delved into the Earth? How close have we gotten to the center? Have we really explored the bottom of the ocean? We haven't even managed to colonize the moon nor mars. We cannot know the future, so therefore one possible future would be one where we never colonize another planet. That we are stuck on Earth. Next Con goes into attacking the webpage I linked to. I've noticed this on other places on the internet. Although you are exceeding in destroying the credibility of the webpage, I don't see much attack on my argument itself. Furthermore, for a long time we did not recognize the animal kingdom. Some of our terminology still has some catching up to do. Yet, we may scientifically find in the future that humans do not belong to the animal kingdom. Humans are the only species with space flight. Even as I type this its possible aliens see us a completely different kingdom than animals. Maybe a new tool would illuminate the difference. I refute that humans are animals. Thus the notion that we can't be superior to ourselves based on animals not being able to superior to their-selves. Humans are superior to animals because we invented cat wigs.
Animals are inferior to humans

Oh sure, turn to science and biology to prove your point. Does anyone even take the scienfic method seriously? Just for starters. "Recently, however, even as metaphysics has come under attack for its apparent lack of access to real knowledge, so has science begun to have its own difficulties in claiming absolute knowledge. " pbs.org " When Does the Scientific Method Fail? Are there circumstances in which the scientific method ought to work, but for which the method does not provide "an accurate representation of the world"--that is, a correct description of the way things really are? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. As Professor Wolfs mentions above, "personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena."" icr.org Its like the old expression "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" wikipedia. http://www.pbs.org... http://www.icr.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...
Animals are inferior to humans

So I guess I can thank StupidApe for that. As it shows, I will be arguing humans are not superior to animals. To make my case, I will make a simple line of rhetoric. Humans are animals, therefor are not superior as they can not be better then what they are as that is self contradictory. As such, the line "animals are inferior to to humans" is a fallacious one as it does not denote the reality that humans are animals. What is that question you wish to ask? "What is defined as an animal"? Well, glad you asked. I will explain to you what exactly an animal is by biological definitions. In truth, an animal is a multi-cellular organism that feeds on organic matter. That's the short version. [1]With this, I will conclude that animals are not inferior to humans nor that humans are higher or better than animals because they themselves are in fact animals. One can not be higher than what they are in actuality, it's nonsensical. Sources for Work:1) The Biology Online websit - . http://www.biology-online.org...
Perfection is Subjective

One thing I have to argue: Your definition of perfection, when it comes to pens, is that if a pen can write, it is perfect. ------------------------ Socrates: So the third pen is perfect, because it writes, correct? Student: Yes, it is. Socrates: But most people can't use this pen, despite the fact that it can write? Student: That is the case. Socrates: So most people can't use it, yet you deem it perfect? Student: So it is. Socrates: And perfection is a lack of flaws? Student: Yes Socrates: Now, if someone didn't like the way something worked, would it have flaws? Student: Well, that depends. If the pen had a certain color ink that wasn't desirable, then it wouldn't be a flaw. But if something were to perform it's task poorly, then it would be a flaw. Socrates: So if something were to do it's job poorly, it would be a flaw, yes? Student: I suppose so. Socrates: So this means the third pen is not perfect, because it performs poorly, meaning it has a flaw. Is this what you are saying? Student: No, no, not at all! ---------------------------- The problem is that perfection is about "worse, good, better, best." If the only qualification for a pen to be perfect is that it writes, but most people can't even use this perfect pen to finish a test, then this is hardly perfect or ideal, or even a practical pen. But its perfect for the USER that is able to write with it well. But you say that it is either perfect or imperfect, in that it can either perform it's task or not. You don't even go into how well or poorly it does it's task, just that it does it's task is enough. Let's use another example: A toilet. Based on your first argument, the toilet is perfect if it does it's job; the toilet flushes the contents down. But let's give it a flaw; not a functioning flaw but an unpleasant flaw. Let's say that it spews out half the water into the person's face when they bend down to flush it. This is unpleasant. This is unsanitary. This is, dare I say it, imperfect. But by your definition, this is still a perfect toilet, because, lo and behold, all the other unpleasant stuff we crammed in there is going to the place that the stuff in our toilets go. Let's try another example: A human. A perfect human is one that performs the tasks it needs to perform. Since there isn't a way to really succeed in life, for this argument, we must assign it a task: reproduction. If a human can reproduce, then it is a perfect human. But like the toilet, we can also give this human (I'll name him George) a flaw. So little George is a brat who does nothing his parents tell him to do, runs every red light, is an alcoholic, and has committed three homicides. But is he perfect or not? He has a perfectly functioning boy part, and died in the chair before ever getting a STD, so yes, he is a perfect man. As unpleasant an example as this is, this seems to be your argument. That perfection is a total lack of flaws, but the more particular definition is that it does what it was meant to do. This is my final argument. I hope you had fun, as I certainly did. Have a blessed day.
Perfection is Subjective

Sorry about last round. I lost track of time with homework and such, so I missed the round. In your definition of perfection, I agree. The total absence of flaws. With that said, each person has a different standard for perfection, and I would like to offer two alternate definitions. Total Perfection- The total absence of flawsEarthly Perfection-The closest humans can get to perfectionThe reason I give two definitions instead of one is because of Plato, who believed in ideal forms. (i. e. there are many examples of pens, but there is one ideal pen. ) Total perfection is objective. But since total perfection is impossible to reach, the standards are left to us to decide what is closest to perfection. This is why perfection on earth is subjective: each person has a different standard of perfection. With your example of the two pens, one student might prefer a pen that is fluid and a certain color ink, while another thinks of a pen with a different ink color, and not too fluid. In other words, you can't please everybody. Again, sorry about last round.
Perfection is Subjective

First, I would like to define my meaning when I use the term 'perfection': The total absence of flaws Defining 'Perfection'I would like to take this a little further, however. The ideas of perfection have been bounced around for millenia, but I think it would be helpful to take a look at the roots of the word 'perfection' itself to further clarify this idea of an absence of flaws. Our word 'perfect' derives from the Latin 'perfectus' which means "completed, finished". It is a word without quantifiers or qualifiers, and is used in the context of completeness, not varying degrees of goodness.With this in mind, I would like to turn to Aristotle's idea of perfection and build upon it. He postulated that a thing is perfect if it fully fulfills the requirements which is was designed for. So, for example, a pen can be deemed 'perfect' if it allows individuals to engage in writing. Whether or not the ink flows fluidly or the colour is undesirable is irrelevent, as long as it is still capable of fulfilling its duty.This idea fits in with the very etymology of the word itself. The pen is "complete" and there is nothing more that need be done to it in order for it to fulfill its intended purpose.Taking Out The Subjective It's important to now outline why this definition can in no way be subjective. Suppose I have two pens, one of which writes fluidly with the colour that I prefer, and the other requires more pressure and is in an undesirable colour. I prefer the former pen, and I deem it to be better than the latter pen because it's a more pleasureable experience to write with. However, both pens, provided that they are both capable of writing, are perfect in that they fulfill their intended purpose and are complete in doing so. In this capacity, only degrees of good or bad are subjective qualities. If the pen were unable to fulfill its duty to write at any point, it would then be considered "flawed" and therefore imperfect.
Perfection is Subjective

Hello, I would like to argue the concept of 'Perfection' and whether or not the definition and/or fulfillment requirements are subjective. I will be arguing that they are not subjective, and are in fact immutable concepts that have not changed since the very concept of 'perfection' as an entity was understood. Pro will argue that 'perfection' as an entity is entirely and/or at least in part subjective, and dependent upon varying perspectives (whether by person, or over time). First round is acceptance. Cheers!
Same-sex marriages should be legal in the United States

I originally intended this debate for 16kadams a while back, but he declined. I'm not letting a good debate go to waste, so I'm leaving this one open. I've made it impossible to accept, leave a comment if you're interested in debating this.Definitions:"State-recognized" - in some way acknowledged by the state, including, but not limited to, offering benefits to participants in the marriage (which may include filing taxes jointly, being able to visit one's spouse during restricted visiting hours, etc). To avoid semantics, "marriage" will refer to a state-recognized union of two consenting adults for the purpose of this debate, and will include same-sex and opposite-sex couples. "Same-sex marriage" or "gay marriage" will refer to a union of two consenting adults of the same sex, while "traditional marriage" will refer to a union of two consenting adults of the opposite sex. The burden of proof lies on Con, due to the positive claim implied (Same-sex marriage should be illegal in the US). I consider this to be a positive claim since it suggests that the government go out of their way to deny same-sex couples the ability to get married. However, Pro can show positive effects that may occur if same-sex marriage were legal, which would mean that Con would either have to show how the negative effects of same-sex marriage would outweigh the positive ones in a significant enough manner to justify it being illegal, or show that the arguments for positive effects of same-sex marriages being legal are not valid.The rules will be kept simple enough:- No semantics/lawyering- No new arguments in the last round- Con should present arguments in the first round. I'd prefer as many as possible, but thoroughness takes priority.- Please use links if citing a study or court case so the data can be verified. If nothing else, link to the Wikipedia article for the study or case.- If you wish to add or modify a definition, I would much prefer that you do so in the comments before accepting the debate, so I can add it to my first round and keep them all in one place. - Please try to stick to secular arguments, unless you are prepared to show direct evidence of God's existence, a signed statement saying that the Bible accurately represents his views and actions, and a good explanation of why we should completely ignore the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.I hope for a good debate.
Iran has a right just like the USA to nuclear energy

Well, I'm disappointed. This seemed like such an intriguing debate, and I was really looking forward to a discussion of foreign policy, nuclear energy policy, and nuclear weapons policy. I wish my opponent had made this debate with full knowledge of his availability, but it is always possible that he was caught by surprise or has suffered an emergency. Nonetheless, I hope that, should he find himself with time to spare, he will invite me to have this debate, which I believe is an important one that few people truly understand. For the time being, as he has yet to contact me about his absence and as he has forfeited these last two rounds, I urge a Con vote, if only based on conduct.
Iran has a right just like the USA to nuclear energy

Well, there's still two rounds left. I'm hopeful my opponent will take the time to argue his case on his own question, especially since I am actually interested in having this debate, as I think it is important to point out the value in this portion of our foreign policy. I won't post any arguments in this round in order to make it balanced. However, as I feel that my position isn't clear from the first round, I will clarify it here. My argument is that the technology used to make nuclear energy possible also makes nuclear weapons possible. I am generally against nuclear proliferation, but I feel that there are specific harms to Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons.
Iran has a right just like the USA to nuclear energy

Hi the parameters of this debate are that : The Islamic Republic of Iran is a fully recognized sovereign state just like the USA is; My opponent must also argue why Iran should not be allowed to obtain nuclear power legally and under international law.... Other than that the debate is on good luck to whoever accepts and to those observing this debate I hope you observe without any misconceptions and biased in your hearts and really see the debate for its content. Thanks :)
YES or NO

I say no, Jenenda. No is defined by Dictionary.com as : adverb (a negative used to express dissent, denial, or refusal, as in response to a question or request) (used to emphasize or introduce a negative statement): Not a single person came to the party, no, not a one. not in any degree or manner; not at all (used with a comparative): He is no better. not a (used before an adjective to convey the opposite of the adjective's meaning): His recovery was no small miracle. adjective not a (used before a noun to convey the opposite of the noun's meaning): She's no beginner on the ski slopes. noun, plural noes, nos. an utterance of the word "no." a denial or refusal: He responded with a definite no. a negative vote or voter: The noes have it. verb (used with object) to reject, refuse approval, or express disapproval of. verb (used without object) to express disapproval. Idioms no can do, Informal. it can't be done. Yes is a coward's option. Vote no.
an almighty god would be unable to learn how it is to have lesser power

Off course he would know. Sure, God can't do anything (e.g. He can't go to hell). Let's say you have an equipment (e.g. a machinery), which no-one in the world has ever seen before. Who is the first person to know how this machinery works and what its mechanism includes? The answer would be the manufacturer, creator, inventor or the producer. Now God is the one who created pain in the first place and so obviously God knows what he has created. We have a limit to our pain and we have pain tolerance, so if God didn't know what pain is he wouldn't be able to make us pass out or lose awareness after we've exceeded our pain tolerance. Source: Torah, Mal'achei https://en.wikipedia.org...