BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
National debt

1. How does it remove money? Think about it. when we tax someone, that money may pay for a luncheon for a Senator, or the salary of a government worker, or for supplies to help maintain roads. Those are all forms of spending money in the economy. Inflation, as i stated in my argument, has not been bad at all. In fact, if you think about it, the only way money is truly out of circulation is when it is stowed in something that isn't taxed. When you redistribute money to poor people, they, by definition HAVE to spend it to survive. They don't sit on it because they don't have that option. If you reduce the taxes of someone wealthy on the other hand, that's just more money that sits concentrated in that person's hands..it isn't spent or re-invested in the economy in ANY way whatsoever. 2. Why accept any currency? All currency is based on faith in the stability of that currency. Even as the US has wracked up more debt, our currency remains the most popular in the entire world. Are you suggesting that people are going to abruptly stop accepting it? Why would they? How would this benefit them or anyone? 3. The housing bubble is a huge issue, much bigger than we should try to debate here. I will neither concede that point, but I won't take it up either because it would take WAY too much time and space to get into. But to address your basic point that the bubble was propped up by people's enthusiasm, I totally agree. But with housing, there way many mitigating circumstances that would lead to the inflation of value being exposed. What, pray-tell, is going to do the same to the dollar? Again: Why are people going to abruptly stop honoring it as you suggest above? 4. I'm a socialist. I don't want the US to be consumer driven either, but until we're willing to pursue something besides free-market capitalism, it HAS to be consumer-driven, there isn't another mechanism. What do you suggest as an alternative?
Resolved, that castration must be legalized

You presented no new points on this process. You are just restating what you said earlier. You still have not told me any way of how this will happen. How will they facilitate the castration process? A much easier debate and solution would be this: All people committed rape and such acts will have a minimum life sentence and no parole. This prevents people frm getting released early, and also people with rape sentences do not get released from jail that easily as you say. This is my stance on castration and why it is an unecessary process.
Resolved, that castration must be legalized

Sorry that I got forfeited. I just got a 3-day workshop. I'm so sorry. Anyways, I still strongly believe that castration must be legalized because: 1.)It can lessen or totally remove the sex urge or sex drive of a male 2.)It is all about urges and sex drives, so it deals with the mind of a person but I said earlier that it will be on serial rapists, incestual rapists, and those who rape minors which are not tolerated by the law. 3.)How can a castrati make any crime when he is castrated? Have you ever heard of rapists who rape his victim using an object? No. They commit rape for reasons of pleasure, who would have pleasure in inserting such pencil? That might be a sadist. 4.) As what you've said that these folk will be in jail for life, it is not true. People don't really stay in prison for life, they can have the , what we call penitence when they can have the be free. The person who are cased with life imprisonment only stay in the prison for about 30-40 years. 5.)It is not a waste, because it is an improvement done by the medicine experts and it can lessen rape cases. Merry christmas and A happy new year to all :D
Resolved, that castration must be legalized

Good Day! I believe you see the purpose in the criminals acts all wrong. Of course there are going to be criminals who acts are purely sex driven, but many of these rapists actions is all psychological. The fact of the matter is that castrating them won't stop them from their actions. For women first of all it won't make any difference, the matter would just be cruel. For men, I can see some reason, but their motives and reasoning to these actions is in their minds. They'll find other ways to commit their crimes. Also, after these rapists and such are caught they will be in jail. A majority of these folk will be in jail for life, or be on death row. I don't see rhyme or reason to be castrating people that will be going to jail. This process is just a waste of time, staff, and even a waste of a new facility. By that I mean is where will they do the process of castrating these men a women. Should they be really sending these criminals to our citizens hospitals to be castrated? This process is just unessecary.
Resolved, that castration must be legalized

Good day to all, The parameters of this debate will be as follows 1.) Castration will be legalized only on serial rapists, incestual rapists, and rapists that rape minors. 2.) We will handle it globally because no law was legalized since early days. A.)What is castration? Castration is any action, surgical, chemical, or otherwise, by which a male loses the functions of the testes or a female loses the functions of the ovaries. http://en.wikipedia.org... << for more infos. B.) Why Castrate? I believe that it will be one of the best way for teaching rapists a lesson and for them and it can lower sex drives of rapists which will lead to abstinence. Rape is one of the most crimes not only in US but all around the world so this can totally of partially stop rape by castrating those sex abusers Reminders: Castration is known for religious reasons but in a debate, I would urge my enemy not to place religious affiliation because it is base in FAITH not in FACT. Hoping for anyone to accept my challenge and I'm preparing for your rebuttal/ or starting the arguments. Thank you.
The Bible is Perfect.

Key Points(1) Pro agreed and conceded to all my points(2) Pro dropped all of my points because he agreed to them(3) He offered no rebuttalsRebuttalCon has made the case that the bible is true by his own standards, this is a failed case. Empirical evidence is justifiable and verifiable evidence by a multitude of standards. Example : CMBR is not just empirical evidence because penzsias and wilson said it existed. It is empirical because anyone with the right equipment and knowledge can look up and verify it for the time being. The same can be said with facts and events in history. How do we know WW2 actually happened? Because there are thousands upon thousands of texts, literature, and footage that document it. The bible is more difficult than this because of its age, but the same logic applies. If (x) would have happened, such as the miracles Christ performed. Secular scholars in that time would have noted this, and took the time to write it about. This did not happen, the bible is its only source of evidence and therefore not accurate .Just because my adversary believes that his God could break the laws of science, does make this an empirical fact. It makes it a personal fact that is relevant to his own belief. The fact is there is no historical or empirical evidence to support any of his claims, other than making his own personal assertion. For Pros case to be true, he must provide empirical evidence to shown that God can break the laws of science and nature and manipulate our thoughts, and for that to be true, he must first prove a God. He has failed to do all of the above. In ClosingThroughout history we can see that the bible does not line up with factual historical accounts of events that transpired. Therefore the most logical conclusion is to assume the bible is not perfect.
The Bible is Perfect.

*FACEPALM*I am giving up on this debate hence forth. As stated in R1 pro acknowledges that all accounts in the bible are historically accurate and should be considered empircal evidence. Since the first round is not for rebuttals, I am just going to start with a basic history lesson and present 1 contention. I would delve deeper, but I already see this being a flop of a debate. The FloodThe flood in the bible quite possibly could have been taken from other accounts within history. The bible claims that is literally the truth, and most people believe this happened in the way that the bible has described. Let us view some facts. Mesopotamia is the first civilization ever to exist[1]. In this civilization the first novel in history was written and it was called The Epic of Gilgamesh[2]. In this Novel the accounts of the flood in the book of Genesis, happen almost word for word. There are different characters and different Gods in The Epic of Gilgamesh but it is essentially the same story in the bible. For a full comparison of the Book of Genesis and The Epic of Gilgamesh see [3]. Since Mesopotamia birthed every civilization after it, the Hebrews and Jews (whom wrote the bible) were not even around at the time the book was written. The epic pre dated the birth of their civilization, yet the story in the bible is literally almost the same story word for word. The only logical explanation for this, is that the accounts in the bible are false and were taken from the epic novel when cultures were being mixed and spread.In ClosingJust reviewing this one point we can see the accounts in the bible do not line up with history. Even if there had been a flood which some evidence supports, the accounts would have occurred in the manner in which the bible described. Since Mesopotamia was the first civilization and the flood according to the bible occurred centuries after this, we can conclude the bible is inaccurate and not empirical. [1] http://www.historiasiglo20.org...[2] http://andyrossagency.wordpress.com...[3] http://www.icr.org...
The Bible is Perfect.

Con has granted me the Bible as the main, if not, only source of evidence i must consider in formulating an argument. I must prove that it is to be read literally and to the effect that all the events in it should be considered credible, viable and empirical sources. As such, I must consider that all aspects of it are true and perfect by my own standards. What I can, therefore, state, without any doubt then, is that an all powerful God is liable to break the laws of science, as he does in the Bible, and, therefore, con must accept that any evidence to the contrary was just the work of God's science breaking power. I might hasten to add that this is a debate on the Bible and thus, I have no choice, but to accept God as it stipulates. Thus, any argument you may make I can refute with God's power.
2040 the federal government should mandate that all new passengers vechcles and light trucks sold in

There are many factors to weigh in when buying a new car. The value at stake in this debate is liberty. That is, the freedom to do what you please and make decisions regarding your life. Should the government require that companies produce lighter cars, then it will only have a small effect on the environment, as CO2 does not endanger the planet. There are many reasons to buy heavy cars. 1) Safety 2) Durability 3) Capacity 1) Cars are much safer when they weight more. Heavier cars tend to do better in crash tests and are less likely to flip in an accident. 2) Heavier cars last longer and can survive more accidents than lighter cars. 3) A car can carry more people when it is larger. This alone makes it more efficeint. Further, a larger car can carry more groceries, bikes, etc. than smaller cars. Smaller cars do not accomodate larger families.
Whites and Asians are inherently more intelligent than other races

1) Nature and Nurture both clearly play a role, but my position is that genetics are the greatest factor in determining how someone behaves. 2) "How are you classing these races? Is complexion based" I'm classifying a race as a larger genetic group of humans. For example, the Spanish, the Germans, The Anglos, etc all fall under the umbrella of white, while sub Saharan Africans would be classified as black (the Australian Aborigines being their own separate group) . "Are you not classifying Russia, India, or island regions of Asia? India has an IQ on par to many areas of Africa? " When I said Asian, the people I was referring to are east Asians, the stereotypically slant eyed yellow Asians. I don't know all that much about India, but they are clearly very distinct from east Asians. There isn't even a uniform Indian race either, as some Indians are very dark (though interestingly have straight hair), and some are light skinned. As for Russia, I don't know the degree to which Russians are mixed with Asians but I consider them white. As for them technically being referenced when I said "Asian", I was just using common terminology. Very few people think of Indians or Russians when somebody says "Asian". 3) It doesn't tie into the argument in the way of proving or disproving intelligence, I was just demonstrating other differences. Also I feel I should link you to the mirror test study https://www.scientificamerican.com...
Whites and Asians are inherently more intelligent than other races

There is little argument from most on the question of whether there is any difference between the races. Obviously there are aesthetic differences such as facial structure, skin color, hair & eyes, etc, but how deep do the differences go? Most would claim that other than small differences on the surface, we are exactly the same. Science, however, would disagree. 1) Intelligence: Looking at an IQ map of earth, there is a very clear correlation between between Whites/Asians and high IQ scores (some claim that Asians cheat on the tests but I have seen no solid evidence of this). IQ, despite what many believe, is primarily genetic. Simply put, low IQ nations don't have low IQ scores because they are not developed, they are not developed because they have low IQ scores. IQ, while not a perfect intelligence test, is a good predictor of success. It is also worth noting that white children, when faced with a mirror, will recognize their own reflection within 15-18 months. In a study done on Kenyan children, it took them 6 years (!!!) before they recognized themselves. 2) Crime: Pretty simple. Blacks commit an incredibly high amount of crime. In America, despite being ~15% of the population, they committed about half of all violent crimes. That speaks for itself. 3) Sports: Biological differences can being further demonstrated by looking at the Olympics. Sprinters and distance runners for years have been overwhelmingly African, due to the fact that Africans are simply biologically better suited to running than any other race. Weightlifting, however, is completely dominated by Whites and Asians. Blacks are showing dominance in many areas of sport due to their natural inclination to be better at running (a skill which happens to be important in pretty much every sport) The bottom line is this: The races are not the same, it's time to stop pretending that they are.
Religion causes more violence than video games

I will just summarize everything that we have discussed hoping that the voters will see that religion does not cause violence but rather violence is present in abundance in today's video games. 1. Religion (Religious Texts/Scrolls, teachings and stories) - reading a religious book (Bible or The Quran) does not require a age level to be met; - religion was written by scholars, educated individuals, with the intent of providing teaching for the good; - in our day's these holy texts are still being analyzed giving further insight into their meaning; - religion brings people together to pray and read in silence; - provides the backbone to the current "Human Rights" declaration; 2. Video Games - most of today's video games require you to be of a certain age in order to play due to the violence present (even so, you are actively participating in this violence); - video games can be seen as entertaining, therefore it sends a subliminal message to your brain (google GTA in real life) - video games keep people apart, in the instance when they are playing together it creates tensions (go ahead and play Mario GO Kart with someone else beside you) - video games don't have any positive impact on the youth (well other than it teaches them the language hehe) VOTE FOR CON!! :)
Religion causes more violence than video games

You are only helping me with your religion crap. Then what started wars? Fight just to fight? ISIS kills others for their religion. Wars start because someone's religion says to destroy or kill people. Others try to defend off those people who destroy or kill people for their religion. Explain that with video games. You can't because no war, battles, or fights has happened with children with video games. It's because of religion. Everything is because of ether religion of science. Violence happens because of religion.
Religion causes more violence than video games

Pro, Please understand that religion does not condone or promote wars. Find me a line in any of the modern day religious texts (Christianity or Islam) that references the above that we have discussed. As i was covering in my material, religious texts was written by educated people in those days. People who knew how to write and lay down the idea in a coherent and understandable way in order for the reader to understand. The texts were later read by individuals who do/did not have the mental capacity to fully understand the literature and took words for granted. These passages and many other (such as parables) have been taken as is for centuries. See this example: Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is 1 2 like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his servants to 3 those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come. "Then he sent some more servants and said, "Tell those who have been invited 4 that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet." "But they paid no attention and went off"one to his field, another to his 5 business. The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. The king 6 7 was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. "Then he said to his servants, "The wedding banquet is ready, but those I 8 invited did not deserve to come. Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet 9 anyone you find." So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the 10 people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests. "But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who 11 was not wearing wedding clothes. "Friend," he asked, "how did you get in here 12 without wedding clothes?" The man was speechless. "Then the king told the attendants, "Tie him hand and foot, and throw him 13 outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." "For many are invited, but few are chosen." I will let you decide what this is. If you are only able to see this text as a parable regarding a wedding invitation then you are proving my point.
Religion causes more violence than video games

Pro, Religion never started any war. Here is why: Religion: the belief and worship of a supernatural being also considered a God As you can see religion cannot start any war since it takes people to create a war. War is a conflict between two or more states or nations. No religion promotes war. Religion is just faith based. The doctrine and interpretation of religion might have caused wars. But that is based on human interpretation. Humans create war based on something that they do not understand. Uneducated individuals read scriptures or scripts and cannot make a rational decision or in other words are unable to think clearly as to what is being meant. As you can see religion is a belief, a statement that something is true; war is a action/conflict. You cannot put the two together, if you do then you will be like the people you are describing. Unable to make rational decisions and to think for yourself. Up to you now
Religion causes more violence than video games

What started every battle and war between about 3000 BCE through some time in the 20th century when video games were invented. And once video games were created, and it almost ended not to shortly after it was invented. What happened during between about 3000 BCE through some time in the 20th century? RELIGION! That's the only reason. Once video games came out, it decrease the rate of wars and battles. Not much and if video games created violence, that means everyone plays video games.
Religion causes more violence than video games

Pro.. I have reasons to believe that you have not read my statements in full. But.. nonetheless: The following times magazine article discussing the video game violence has given insight onto the subject of the matter, drawing conclusions based based on studies in the US where children are becoming more and more violent due to playing video-games. If the young child (the teen) is exposed at such an early age to this type of violent video games then their personality and brain function changes as well, developing him into an aggressive adult. Now lets take this into consideration. Most of today's soldiers are trained through simulations, most of tactics and advanced weaponry are developed thorough simulation on a computer. If these simulations are being "dumb" down to a video game level, which is what most of today's war games are like (they collaborate with the military forces) to implement in their games in order to make them more realistic. You would argue that these game have not created any wars but such event as Columbine and many others [2] have created this internal war. Now lets look at how many fight there have been since the 2000's that involved teens took matters into their own hands and started killing people. That number will have to be very small since i was unable to find any that were documented. I believe that video games are developing an aggressive behavior in today's teens and even preteens (20+) which can impact their behaviors in the future. [1] http://time.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Religion causes more violence than video games

I agree with bullies, but what about before video games. There were more fights before staying at home or at an arcade playing games. Religion was around more than 5000 or more years ago and there were more fights and battles back then than once video games were first introduced. Look at ISIS. They don't have any video games and they are killing off people because that's their religion. What about the 9 11. That happen with no video games at all. Just hijackers taking over planes and killing themselves and lots of other people for their religion. Video games distract others from whats happening around the world. They know whats right and wrong, they just hide themselves from the rest of the world. Your move
Religion causes more violence than video games

I will gladly accept this debate in the hopes that it will show the instigator once and for all the after effects of video games. 10 biggest wars related to religion: http://addictivelists.com... We will assign a value of 10. Number of wars/battles related to video games: None as far as i can see (beside the occasional teenage/preteen level bully fights) that were major. So we will assign a value of 0. Now you would argue that all of these facts are against the Con (me) strengthening Pro's argument/s. But the reason why i chose this debate is due to this "there were more - than" Let's do the math: 10 wars/battles due to religion / 0 wars/battles due to video games = Cannot divide by 0 Let's re-arrange that "equation" then 0 wars/battles due to video games / 10 wars/battles due to religion = 0 Therefore; concluding, there were 0 times more wars generated by religion than video games. Hope this helps Pro