BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Males are superior so females

"There are plenty of powerful women in history" and there are more powerful men in history, Cleopatra was a incompetent leader "A very powerful Chinese Pirate-Queen type figure" I am guessing that was Cheng I Sao, But she was only there because she was a wife to the former pirate 'king' Catherine II was only there for again, Marrying a man to get his power, "Et cetera"? " However, This argument is trumped by the pure fact that there is no definitive answer regarding which sex is superior in all regards. " well that is opinionated, Also yes, This is a troll post =)
If there is a god he and he is a he, Has a lot to answer for

he takes his time to see if you are able to see if you are able to find the answer by ourselves. He has erased our memory of before so we know how to choose on our own. If he did not erase our past in heaven then we wold never learn for ourselves what we need to do and what is wrong or right. He leaves it up to us to choice our own path.
You cut the cake, I pick the first piece.

" Back to legal preferences I would have to say actually laws that are designed to enforce multiculturalism and its institutions only serve to prove that multiculturalism is a bad idea that requires a police state to just try and struggle on." So you concede. ". If multiculturalism was a great idea it would happen naturally and not require force and the punishment of the majority." So you concede. " However if we look on a global level rather then a societal level I and I'm sure every sound person can see the beauty of diversity" So you take back your concessions and toss out a fallacy of the argument from intimidation. "The best way to maintain that diversity is to keep and maintain seperate societies that insure each subspeices or breed of human can maintain their uniqueness." Whose land are you going to steal to do this? And don't you know that some types of human (for example the burglar type) could not possibly maintain a separate society, because there would be nothing for them to loot? (If you are not speaking of defining the separate groups in terms of their types of actions, but in terms of their race or some such, I need merely state that the theory that race is a meaningful determinant of the value of human beings in any sense has no evidence behind it and plenty against, and as such racial diversity can have no value, because race as such is incapable of holding value. If you are not speaking of either actions or race, I propose that you tell us just what you are speaking of.
You cut the cake, I pick the first piece.

You asked me to explaine why having legal preferences has any baring on whether diversity is a good thing or not. Unfortuanately my side of the debate is to proove that diversity is a good thing. I appoligize for the "blah blah blah" the problem with proving diversity is a good thing is that there are no facts to point to. For example if you try and show that the economy is improved by more diversity then someone can point to China which is the fastest rising economy on the planet and not really diverse etc. Back to legal preferences I would have to say actually laws that are designed to enforce multiculturalism and its institutions only serve to prove that multiculturalism is a bad idea that requires a police state to just try and struggle on. If multiculturalism was a great idea it would happen naturally and not require force and the punishment of the majority. However if we look on a global level rather then a societal level I and I'm sure every sound person can see the beauty of diversity. The best way to maintain that diversity is to keep and maintain seperate societies that insure each subspeices or breed of human can maintain their uniqueness.
You cut the cake, I pick the first piece.

" Diversity as it means today is about different groups of people." This, it happens, alters NOTHING. My definition of diversity simply talked about differences between people, it did not mention whether they differences were individualized or between groups. My point about skyscrapers and hovels, or it's essence anyway, applies whether we are talking about Frank Lloyd Wright versus Marcus Agrippa, or the American Builder's Association versus the Thatcher's Guild of some ancient village. Not to mention, your definition lacks.. definition. It is WHAT about different groups of people? "Even legally we have preferences based on groups." Please explain how the fact that there are presently legal preferences based on groups has bearing on whether or not diversity is a good thing. the rest of your "blah blah blah" is not worth addressing :D
You cut the cake, I pick the first piece.

Very well, I am Con then. Diversity, as a mere description of degree of difference between people, rather than a description of the people themselves or what constitutes that difference, is value-neutral, not a "Good thing." Certain manifestations of diversity may have value- for example, the introduction of a man who can produce skyscrapers among men whose productive capacity is limited to hovels. Other manifestations of diversity, however, are strictly bad, for example the introduction of a murderer among a group of non-murderers. And still yet others are neutral, say the introduction of a blonde man among brown-haired. Because the possibilities for good, bad, and neutral manifestations of diversity all exist, it is not true that diversity qua diversity is something "good." Indeed, even among the more neutral manifestations, many "diversities of taste" lean toward the reduction of economies of scale, making it harder for each to fulfill their varying tastes. Also, society as such is not an entity, and thus things cannot be "good for" or "bad for" it precisely, only for its constituent members, the individuals.
You cut the cake, I pick the first piece.

The above is not the actual resolution I am debating, it is a metaphor that sets the terms of this challenge.. My opponent shall write the resolution, any resolution they please. I then choose which position on it I will argue (So I may or may not be the actual "Pro" in this debate). So, I advise you to only accept this debate if A. You are a traditional debate wonk who is willing to argue any position, or B. you are quite sure the resolution is one on which I'll actually disagree with you on (my profile should be complete enough that it won't be hard to tell for most debates). There is a hidden third possibility I would also advise you to take the challenge under, but I won't be telling you what that third possibility is, just to mess with your head :D. Feel free to disregard the stated or implied advice, so long as you comply with the terms of the challenge, if you think you know some other good way to go about it :D Other than that, go wild.
Same sex marriage should be legalized in Australia

Now I will go into my rebuttals. 1. First you have the right to marry who you want and do what you want. Lets see about Tim Cook. He is a Gay. If he lived in Australia does he have not a right to be gay and divorce. Right now what you are saying is that If you are Australian or in Austalia you cannot be a gay. Since 1888 the US Supreme Court has declared 14 times that marriage is a fundamental right for all, according to the American Foundation for Equal Rights. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees "men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion... the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution." Amnesty International states that "this non-discrimination principle has been interpreted by UN treaty bodies and numerous inter-governmental human rights bodies as prohibiting discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation. Non-discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation has therefore become an internationally recognized principle.Thank you.
Same sex marriage should be legalized in Australia

You have only addressed one of my arguments. "Opposite-sex couples can get married whether or not they are able or willing to procreate." This does not subtract from the principle of marriage and procreation is still a possibility. However, same sex couples cannot procreate, it is not even a possibility. "equal legal treatment." Heterosexual marriage is not equal to same marriage. Discrimination on the basis skin color, gender etc is wrong but discrimination on the basis of skill, talent, charisma, social skills etc is not. In this case the discriminating factor is procreation. Same sex couples are awarded legal rights under civil unions which is sufficient. "Same-sex couples have and raise children" Opposite couples are better equipped to raise children then same sex couples. WHY has nature endowed us with a mother and father? "higher suicide rates than their heterosexual counterparts" Is this not the the cause of this their homosexuality. Higher suicide rates and lower life expectancy is common among homosexuals and to attribute this to other people ignores all internal factors. Take regions where homosexuality is accepted thoroughly but yet these statistics remain. The source of these problems is in the lifestyle itself. "celebrate their love and commitment...social recognition" All of your arguments can be applied to any non traditional marriage relationship. "Same-sex marriage is already a reality in a growing list of countries including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa." Morality and laws are not based on what everyone else is doing and so this argument is arbitrary. I believe in absolute morality as given by God. I feel as if your argument is a copy and paste so please respond directly to what i have said (QUOTE what i have said and say why i am wrong). Answer This: If two sisters came up to you and said they love each other and are deeply committed and wanted to adopt children, what principle would you rely on to dismiss them access to marriage? Are you not "discriminating" and denying them equal social and legal recognition etc.
Same sex marriage should be legalized in Australia

Legalizing same sex marriage is an unprincipled decision. Its purpose from a social standpoint is to recognize the responsibilities impingement upon procreation. If you cannot procreate you cannot get married. Secondly, nature has endowed us with a mother and father because they are complementary. Ideal family conditions involve a male and female parent. That isn't to say a same sex couple could not be better than an opposite set couple in raising children, but merely that ideal parents would be of the opposite sex. Thirdly, if same sex marriage is legalized what meaning does marriage have; it is now longer has any principle. Same sex advocates often talk about "Love" being the defining factor in a marriage, not gender, child rearing etc. If two sisters romantically love each other and want to get married, what principle are you going to rely on to dismiss this request? There isn't any principle because the original principle, namely procreation has been broken. This can be applied to bestiality, polygamy, inanimate objects. I am sincerely not saying homosexuals practice such things but am saying that such relationships are hard to dismiss once marriage is meaningless; others may say your discriminating upon another factor etc. Legalizing same sex marriage is a moral slippery slope.
My opponent doesn't know how to debate.

I argue that my opponent doesn't know how to debate. I will use this debate as a chance for him/her to prove otherwise. Rules 1. Failure to obide by the rules will result in a 7-point loss. Viewers are encouraged to vote in the masses.2. In this debate, it shall be assumed that if the opponent gives no arguments supporting his case in this debate, then (s)he therefore does not know how to debate.3. Twisting the definitions of words that are fairly obvious is strictly forbidden.4. The first round will be used by Con as a chance to accept the debate. Any part of Con's round 1 that isn't stating his acceptance shall be strictly forbidden.5. The use of Pornography to bribe the poor little innocent voters into voting for them is strictly forbidden.6. Persons with the capability to 'hack' this debate to alter it in any way that a normal person would not be able to do is strictly forbidden.7. If a voter has to twist the definitions of words in order to give any reason for his voting, that vote shall be countered.8. Using innapropriate or offensive language is strictly forbidden.9. The use of catchy slogans to brainwash the voters into voting for yourself is strictly forbidden. For example, 'Vote for me or smell like pee!'.10. It shall be accepted that the catchy (and modestly clever) slogan given as an example in the ninth rule does not violate the ninth rule and it therefore does not mean that Pro (Me, KingDebater) deserves a 7-point loss.11. Con creating or abolishing rules is strictly forbidden.12. Attempting to point out any 'flaws' or any 'unfairness' in the rules or this debate in general is strictly forbidden, and violates the fourth law.13. Using snynonyms to attempt to get around rules such as the twelth rule is strictly forbidden.14. When Con accepts the debate, (s)he understands that (s)he agrees to enter this 'debate' with me with all the rules in effect.
Kim Jung Il of North Korea was not a good leader

"U DOT C KIM DESTROYING AFRICA SLOWLY BUT SURELY"Thats not the debate here, the debate is over whether or not Kim Jung Il was a good leader of North Korea, and I have shown how that Kim Jung Il has done more damage to his own country than Stalin did to Russia(pauses to let the con go into his rage session)I extend all my arguments since the Con only called me a prick. rather than take the cheap conduct point I would normally get for letting this slide I will now proceed on using the rest of this debate posting funny photos of Stalin, Kim Jung Il, and Kim Jung Un >:)........Might as well start off with a classic............................ ................This is Kim Jung Un's 4th grade yearbook photo......................................... ......................Remember the opening ceremony making Kim Jung Un the new leader? Kinda went like this................... ........................Hey Remember when Hitler and Stalin made that friendship Pact and invaded Poland?...................................... ..............Honeymoon didnt last very long.............
Kim Jung Il of North Korea was not a good leader

YOUR A PRICK!!! ROT IN HELL MPERIALIST SUPPORTER!!! HOPE UFEEL GOOD ABOUT YOURSELF!! Y DONT YOU HAVE A GO AT EUROPEAN AND AND WESTERN LEADERS FOR WHAT THEY ARE DOING AND DID TO THE WHOLE OF AFRICA!! SLAVE TRADE and EMPIRES, THE MOST COURSE OF DEATH AND MST IN-HUMAIN THING EVER DONE!! U DOT C KIM DESTROYING AFRICA SLOWLY BUT SURELY!!!
Just governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens.

Governments should not be responsible to provide food for their citizensIn response to Pros argument that Governments are "Morally obligated" to provide their citizens with food is like saying that you should always give the seagulls bread on the beach that are taking dives for your food.Point 1: First of all, I do believe Everyone should have food available to them but I do not believe that the government should provide everyone in need of food with food. By the government providing food for everyone in need of it people will learn to live off of that without trying to earn it for themselves. Have your parents ever told you not to feed wild animals? (Not calling people in need of food animals in anyway but it's a very similar point) It's because if they don't fight for themselves they will never be able to live without it. People need to learn to live without the government providing everything for them. In conclusion if you learn to live off the government, you will be less likely to improve your situation.Point 2: Just in America there are approximately 610,000 homeless people. On average it costs $294 to feed 1 person per month. So, if the government provide food for every homeless person in America it would cost over 2.1 billion dollars per year! Also, the amount would never decrease because (see first point) they would get used to the situation they are in instead of try and improve.In closing no one should have to be hungry but the government should not have to pay to feed everyone. It would be too expensive and also would not motivate people to get jobs but discourage them from trying to get jobs because they don't need them to live.Links used for statistics: https://www.hudexchange.info... http://www.loweryourspending.com...
is abortion a good thing

No no no you have it all wrong God is not real. This can be seen when Aragorn says: "Hold your ground! Hold your ground! Sons of Gondor, of Rohan, my brothers, I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me. A day may come when the courage of men fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day. An hour of wolves and shattered shields, when the age of men comes crashing down, but it is not this day! This day we fight!! By all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West!!!
bringing salt water inland.

Here is an interesting article I found on removing salt from water. (http://news.mit.edu...) Natasha Wright is still working on the project as far as I know. So there is a possibility that desalination by solar power would be an ideal method. The largest issues with this, however is that solar power is limited to the amount of sun in a day. Also most of the water that evaporates is because of natural vapor pressure a liquid has at a given temperature. The suns help is more of keeping temperature high. Higher temperatures, in this case, mean more vapor pressure/water evaporation. The sun doesn't really give enough energy to make the water boil though for that it needs to get the temerity up really high. Sea water doesn't boil until it reaches 212"F. There is always some vapor amount in the air above water though, so I suppose if you had a way to constantly collect it the water it would keep evaporating. The dehumidifier idea seems somewhat logical besides, the need to power the unit. If you could somehow just pull the water out of the air maybe it could be separated from the salt that way. Although dehumidifiers are very sensitive to ions like salt so it could end up ruining the unit, unless you used some other heat transfer system that didn't use common refrigeration. Another point I see other scientists makes it that as far as making salt water drinkable out of all the methods currently being used filtration seems to be the most effective when you consider cost. As far as selling the salt goes "On average, seawater in the world's oceans has a salinity of approximately 3.5%"(https://www.sciencedaily.com...). So let's say you were able to collect all the salt from a gallon of water. From some math (I can show if needed) that would give you about 163.52 grams of sea salt. That amount sold in stores is about $2.00. Someone has estimated that the cost to maintain a village in Africa for a year is around $130,000 (https://www.quora.com...) that would mean you would have to be perfectly evaporating salt out of water at a rate of 8 gallons a day to make enough money for that....well that's if you make 100% profit, ignoring overhead,labor,shipping, ect... I am not against the idea of it but I don't think the sun would produce enough energy for that, and if you start adding things like humidifiers, heaters, ect.. that all adds cost to the overall process.
bringing salt water inland.

Hello again. So setting up solar panels or a power station is out of the question. So what about setting up a greenhouse like building and using the heat from the sun to evaporate the water. A kind of set it and forget it until most of it has evaporated. There are places where they can be set up to receive the most sunlight in a day. Places where the humidity in the air has gone down and rainfall isn't what it used to be. like adding a giant humidifier in a place. I'm not talking about bottling the water and distributing it, possibly the salt left behind and selling that. Even though it would be in minuscule amounts but still worth something to someone right?
bringing salt water inland.

It is a pleasure to debate with you foster tom. Before I get to far into the numbers I just want to bring up some facts about the process of making salt water into drinking water, also known as desalination. Although I am definitely not against the idea of making more fresh water available to people, I think the cost of it outweighs the benefits. For some simple statistics for start with the most energy efficient desalination process can produce fresh water at a rate of 1kgal/6kWh, or a thousand gallons per 6 thousand watts of energy every hour. The theoretical efficiency of the process claims that it is possible to obtain 1kgal/2kWh. As the process is tweaked and made better the value of efficiency get closer the 2kWh value. (Source: http://www.usbr.gov...) Many survivalist websites also recommend a person have a gallon of water per day (http://water.usgs.gov...). Obviously people probably survive on less at times, but a gallon per person makes the math easier. So with all that in mind the above process running between 6-2 kWh would make enough fresh water an hour for 1000 people. Running 24 hours a day would make the process able to out put 24,000 people with enough water for that day. For a year the process would make enough freshwater for 8,064,000 for a day. It may seem like a lot but if we look at people who rely on that source and account for people drinking water every day we are back to our original 24,000. Even that number seems pretty good I mean just make a place for a smaller population, and make more water desalination, right? The problem is when we get to the factor of energy issues start to come up. I won't get into the math quite yet but there are some factors I want to bring up that are worth noting. As of right now the best types of energy we have for this process are electrical and solar, because of their efficiency and ability to transfer/be set up relatively easily. Solar panels are not as efficient as they seem and I am fairly certain they would not be able to supply enough power (again haven't done the math on it yet). Electricity seems to be the next best option, but where does electricity come from. Coal= 33% Natural gas = 33% Nuclear = 20% Hydropower = 6% Other renewables = 7% Biomass = 1.6% Geothermal = 0.4% Solar = 0.6% Wind = 4.7% Petroleum = 1% Other gases = <1% (https://www.eia.gov...) Coal needs water to help the electrical generation process, although the water is put back into the water sources it's pulled from, if we need more energy and more coal plants they'll need to use more water. Same thing with Natural Gas, and Nuclear power, expect Nuclear power also wastes some water. The biggest challenge in this debate will be to determine if the water we get is worth the energy we need to make it. I look forward to the discussion.