BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Racism should be allowed if it is towards italians.

I'll begin by defining "race", as well as "racism". rac·ism   –noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among thevarious human races determine cultural or individualachievement, usually involving the idea that one's own raceis superior and has the right to rule others. 2. a policy, system of government, etc. , based upon fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. race –noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity. 2. a population so related. 3. Anthropology . a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, thecommonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro,characterized by supposedly distinctive and universalphysical characteristics: no longer in technical use. b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes,esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of variousphysical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eyeshape, and now frequently based on such geneticmarkers as blood groups. c. a human population partially isolated reproductively fromother populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans. 4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: theSlavic race. 5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc. : the Dutch race. 6. the human race or family; humankind: Nuclear weapons pose a threat to the race. 7. Zoology . a variety; subspecies. 8. a natural kind of living creature: the race of fishes. 9. any group, class, or kind, esp. of persons: Journalists are aninteresting race. 10. the characteristic taste or flavor of wine. Based on the definition of racism (it seems my opponent is pointing at #3), then we should therefore use the first definition of race. I'll wait for my opponent to post opening arguments. Meanwhile, it is my position that "Italian" is not a race. Good luck.
will youtube replace teachers

Do you expect school students to watch 6-7 hours of youtube each day? If school students were to watch 6-7 hours their eyes would be damaged and it would also damage their brain. Scientist have proven that when you watch 4 or more hours of youtube,it will little by little detroy their brain. Reseach found that it is also thickening the frontal lobe region. When you are at school you aren't just sitting, you are talking, moving and questioning. There can be no doubt that Youtube will NEVER REPLACE TEACHERS!
Morality does not need God to exist

Thanks, and good luck to you "The fact that you have conceded my definition proves that you need the concept of Good and Evil , which requires God to exist, thus the Con has already won." Really? Your definition: concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct Right or good conduct is not determined by God, but by society. Evil in the sense used above does not have any supernatural connotation, it is synonymous with immoral behavior. The fact that the word evil is used to describe morality in no ways proves that morality is dependent on God. It's "good and evil," not "Good and Evil." So you are asserting that atheists (and agnostics?) can not have morality, or at least "it just doesn't happen," correct? Do you know any atheists personally? Does every single one of them act immorally, more so than you and your fellow Christians? I find that very hard to believe, as I would consider myself to be quite moral, even based on Christian morality. In fact, it is rather ironic that you would write so extensively about the immorality of atheists, and than proclaim yourself to be Arsen the Great. I always thought pride was a sin according to you guys. Is it not immoral to sin? Just because our founding fathers spoke of God, and perhaps Confucius believed in God (he believed in heaven and "spiritual beings"), does not mean that morality needs God to exist. The fact that moral codes were developed by people who believe in God is a result of the fact that people have been worshiping some sort of God or Gods for the past 10 thousand years. It is only now, in the age of information, that people are starting to develop a more complete understanding of their surroundings and so they do not need the security of believing in God and heaven. Morality will still persist, because it has always been and will always be a product of the will of different societies and rulers. This is why there is so-called subjective morality that varies between cultures, it's the same reason different cultures have different beliefs regarding God. Not all cultures have the same beliefs regarding marriage, for instance. If you think that God is judging those people as immoral than you are arrogant for thinking that you are right and they are wrong. The reason why there is objective morality is because all people are pretty similar in the fact that nobody likes pain. This is why murder, and rape, and beating people up are all immoral no matter what. Any person regardless of their upbringing should know that they do not want to die or feel pain, and therefore should not inflict it on somebody else.
Morality does not need God to exist

The fact that you have conceded my definition proves that you need the concept of Good and Evil , which requires God to exist, thus the Con has already won. That statement by no means suggests that people who believe in God always act morally, it suggest that people who have morality have because they believe in God, and therefore the notions of Good and Evil. In recent history people who don't believe in God, are less moral, there are way more people who arehooked on porn and just because they hear about God, doesn't mean that they will be moral, but when they believe in God, much more moral decisions result. To say that people don't need God for morality to exist is naive, while its a possiblity like everything I know of, it just doesn't happen, people who don't have God loose their distinction between good and evil and therefore their choices go skewed and the morality goes down, but in order for that morality to be there, they need to believe in God. Look to the history, even when people didn't believe in that one same God, they believed that there is God and thus they developed morals, and these days, morals are passed down from Parents who generally believed in God, or on their relative's side someone had previously introduced the morality which was drwan from the concept of God. Morality is only made after there is the concept of God. You're debating Arsen the Great ("John Frame" It was just the quote I found), people have the concept of God and therefore can belive in Good and Evil therefore they get the ability to think morally. Think of animals for example, are they moral, sure they might make a seemingly moral decision, but in general they don't think of God and therefore aren't morally capable. You are factually incorrect. The declaration of Independance calls for all people to be treated equally as they were created by "God". Most, if not all of our laws were created by people who believe in God. If people get killed in some random city often, it becomes a norm, is it morall? NO, it is not, and int is not under the belief in God. I agree that your only evidence is logic, the problem is in that your logic is faltered because it is simply naive and does not take into account the fact that people evolved based on believeing in a higher being aka GOD, sure at this point of time one is tempted to think that you don't need God to have morality existing, the problem is that without the concept of God, you won't get to "morality" and one won't last morall without God. The fact that you agree that Confucius could have belived in God, proves that his logic was touched by the fact of beliving in a higher being, God, which means that without knowing about God, Confucius would not have though of that quote.
Morality does not need God to exist

I apologize for not defining morality at the onset of this debate, but your definition is fine. "History proves that we need God for morality to exist otherwise, the notions of good and evil lose their force; the terminal impact is that people become less moral, this is evident in our recent history" This statement suggests that those who believe in a God never act immorally, but that is far from true. Even if there is a religion that has an understanding of God that is 100% correct, there are almost certainly members of that religion that break their own moral code. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all have immoral believers, and all of them have horrible atrocities made in their name - Crusades, Holocaust, Zionist movement, 9/11 etc. People did not become less moral in recent history, just better informed. Am I debating you or John Frame? Impersonal objects do not justify ethical obligations, other people do. There would be no such thing as morality if there were not people (or other organisms capable of higher thought) to exercise their free will. "Without God anything is permitted, when one think of morality, any terrible crime can be justified by any of the Pro's possible ethins" No, without law anything is permitted. We have laws to enforce morals that our society has deemed to be universal. The guarantee of basic freedoms for all Americans is a moral obligation that is independent of God. We determine what is right and wrong based on a consensus of representatives who use their own judgment to decide the moral code of our society. "The only evidence he has is about Confucius and in accepting this debate, my opponent cannot bring any new evidence because that will steal the ground since I'll have limited time to answer it and by bringing new evidence my opponent will rule out his first speech as obsolete proving my argument to be superior" The only "evidence" I have is logic. Even if Confucius did believe in God, that does not mean that his statement requires divine justification, as it can be proven to be self-beneficial with simple rationality.
Morality does not need God to exist

Thanks for a debate offer and good luck, Resolution: Morality needs God to exist 1. What I define as morality, and please accept my definition as its the only one defined with a source concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct wordnet. princeton. edu/perl/webwn 2. History proves that we need God for morality to exist otherwise, the notions of good and evil lose their force; the terminal impact is that people become less moral, this is evident in our recent history . http://www.thirdmill.org... "John Frame" "To say God exists is to say that the world is created and controlled by a person – one who thinks, speaks, acts rationally, loves and judges the world. To deny that God exists is to say that the world owes its ultimate origin and direction to impersonal objects or forces, such as matter, motion, time, and chance. But impersonal objects and forces cannot justify ethical obligations. A study of matter, motion, time, and chance will tell you what is up to a point, but it will not tell you what you ought to do. An impersonal universe imposes no absolute obligations. " 3. Without God anything is permitted, when one think of morality, any terrible crime can be justified by any of the Pro's possible ethins 4. Onto my opponet's case -The only evidence he has is about Confucious and in accepting this debate, my opponent cannot bring any new evidence because that will steal the ground since I'll have limited time to answer it and by bringing new evidence my opponenent will rule out his first speech as obsolete proving my argument to be superior -. http://books.google.com... Confucius did believe in heaven and higher spiritual being, aka God; This proves that he drew his morals from the concept of God thus Con directly wins 5.
Morality does not need God to exist

Morality is the product of an innate desire that most people have, which is to be accepted by other people. Often the best way to gain the acceptance of other people is to treat them the way that you would like to be treated, this is only logical. Confucius said it best when he laid down a very similar Golden Rule of morality (5 centuries B.C.), "Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself," and he had no belief in any deity. http://www.arthuralevinebooks.com...
Morality does not need God to exist

My claim is simple, people throughout the history believed in God's existence and still do, the fat that they believe in God helps them to differ the good against evil, without this concept they cannot be moral, Atheists are influenced by the belief that God exists and therefore they are able to become moral, the very fact that they don't believe in God suggests that they know about this idea of God's existence therefore I win First of all if God exists as long as you prove otherwise which no one can, the debate is about the concept of God's existence, therefore if you vote on technicality I ought to win. Ask yourself: "How can we believe in something that we don't have the idea about? " meaning something that was never thought of, if something is never thought, it is therefore not existent to us. I see what you mean however you are misinterpreting my quote, what I contend is that if you don't invent(discover) something how can it then exist, it cannot, therefore how can a car function if it is not yet developed, invented, or discovered which ever you prefer. I apologize for no spell checking, but I am glad you've been able to interpret the quote. The fact that people are innately selfish means that they are prone to act immorally, therefore the existence of God is necessary and thus I ought to win. Just look to history, it shows us how the people who didn't believe in God were violent and cannibalistic, not moral. The animals cannot reason and don't believe in God, and are they primitive? Yes they most certainly are. The thing is that morality is drawn from our distinction of evil and good, these now may seem as though ingrained into us, but they would have never been if our ancestors were not believing in God. Therefore I urge you to vote Con as I proved the Pro to be wrong. The first thing about "I do not believe" is the part "I", sure I can say I don't believe in people dying in wars, but am I right? Certainly no, just because you believe in something doesn't mean it is right, and since this is a debate the fact that you stopped contesting with the arguments and turned to what you believe proves that I have won. Thanks for the tip and thank you for the debate. I urge voters to vote based on arguments not their friendships or their beliefs.
Christianity is Beneficial to Everyday Life

I'm looking for an opponent to debate the benefits Christianity has on everyday life. I'll start off by stating that Christianity promotes the family unit and the presence of a father and a mother in a family. This is a problem in real life. There are too many children living with only one parent. Most of the time, said parent is struggling to make ends meet. Christianity also promotes waiting till marriage to have children. Children born to parents out of wedlock often times end up with a single parent. The next point is Christianity's opposition to the media's constant output of sexual and provocative content. The content is not beneficial to the consumer because they believe that having pre-marital sex and the consumption of pornography are good and should be practiced. If a person is raised on Christian morals they will realize that this is not good and that it is degrading to a person's character. My final point is Christianity's urge to practice such morals as tolerance, love, self-discipline, piety, and trustworthiness. These morals are greatly needed in our world today. These morals are very beneficiary to our world. A devout Christian should practice said morals. Therefore, a devout Christian is beneficial to our world. Thanks for debating! Have fun.
Debating

"Maybe that was true in the past, but that was what I have received and you said it too"I admit I made a mistake, but that doesn't change the points I made. At the end you only need the 3 debates and it is not unfair.Unfair: not fair; not conforming to approved standards, as of justice, honesty, or ethics. [1]There are no reasons that would make the system unfair."what integrity is there to vote if there are subjects such as mlp is for homos."This is irrelevant to the resolution"now that you brought up that point, that's unfair as well. School presidential candidates also have to bring up their points before people vote for them, they can even vote for themselves and otheir opponents if they choose."This doesn't make DDO system unfair. If you think your opponent won or had better arguments, you only need to concede or forfeit. The voters will vote properly.The DDO system is not unfair. It actually makes DDO fair because it encourage people to have only one account. Each vote should be the decision of one person only.Thanks for the debate. Vote for CON.Sources:1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debating

Maybe that was true in the past, but that was what I have recieved and you said it too: ". You will be required to complete 3 debates before voting privileges can be granted" It clearly states that you can confirm your identity manually, but debating 3 times is still required. Also, what integrity is there to vote if there are subjects such as mlp is for homos. Also, now that you brought up that point, that's unfair as well. School presidential candidates also have to bring up their points before people vote for them, they can even vote for themselves and otheir opponents if they choose.
Debating

"This is the message I have received as a new comer. DDO requires us to debate 3 times before we are allowed to vote as well as confirm my identity."This is not true and my point still remains.From the FAQ:"If you do not have a cell phone, you can request to have your account manually confirmed for debate voting. You will be required to complete 3 debates before voting privileges can be granted. Learn how to do so here." [1]So actually you only need to do one of those." If they already confirmed my identity, why do I have to debate 3 times before I can vote?"From the FAQ:"We require members to complete 3 debates prior to being granted voting access because it ensures that all voters have some relevant debate experience. In addition, it helps protect the integrity of debate voting by ensuring only legitimate accounts have voting privileges." [1]Considering that the identification by cell phone is not necessary and the 3 debates rule has its reasons, it is justified. It is not unfair because voting doesn't give members any kind of advantage. Remember that you can't vote on your own debates, even after the 3 debates.Sources:1. http://www.debate.org...#
Debating

Debate Voting Privileges In order to vote, we currently require two steps. These steps, although annoying, are in place to protect the integrity of the debates by ensuring that only confirmed, unique accounts have voting privileges. 1Confirm Your Identity Your Status: COMPLETE 2Complete Three Debates Your Status: INCOMPLETE" This is the message I have received as a new comer. DDO requires us to debate 3 times before we are allowed to vote as well as confirm my identity. If they already confirmed my identity, why do I have to debate 3 times before I can vote? I shouldn't have to complete both if my identity has already been confirmed. Therefore, DDO is unfair towards new comers when is comes to voting.
Debating

I disagree with the resolution. Rebuttal:"We shouldn't be forced to make 3 debates before debating others. .. "DDO doesn't force you to debate 3 times so you can debate. This actually doesn't make sense. How are you going to debate others if you need to debate 3 times first? ". .. and voting"This is also false. DDO has reasons to do this. They need to ensure that everyone is using just one account. Asking for 3 debates is just one way, but you don't need to do it. You can give your cell phone or contact support if your country is not listed. "Debate. com does not know us and our views. "This is irrelevant to the resolution. As a new comer, there is little DDO can do to know your views. But there is an option. DDO has a forum. In conclusion you should not be feel forced to debate. The main point of this site is to debate so you should be debating anyway. Thanks.
Homosexual couples should have the same right as normal couples

First our society is made up of different people, different religious etc, therefore our society is diverse. We can't classify our society by society A and society B. Second, you said people born with mental problems shouldn't be forgiven, you equated being homosexual with having a mental problem. There is a clear difference between a psychopathic narcissist and homosexual. The definition of psychopathic "suffering from an undiagnosed mental disorder". Homosexual is a sexual attraction to the person of the same sex. They are not suffering from a mental disorder. They are normal people, they're just attracted to a person of same sex. Also you said heterosexual couples have more value in reproduction. First, homosexual couples can have test tube babies, therefore becoming a value to society. Secondly, there are 73.2 million orphans under 18 in the US, with government paying for many of these orphans. The money for these orphans is from our taxes. The reason for orphan problem is that heterosexual couples don't want to take care of their own children and they don't have enough money to support them. However, homosexual couples would like to adopt these same kids. Furthermore, there are lots of heterosexual couples that can't have a baby. They are certainly worth more money than in terms of pornographic value. Your 4th paragraph asserts that gay couples are " counter- reproductive" your next paragraph doesn't support this, but simply jump to another wild accusation that gay couples are "worth" more because of trends in pornography.
Homosexual couples should have the same right as normal couples

They should either have less rights in a religious society or more rights in a LGBT one.Just because a psychopathic narcissist was born that way doesn't mean we then say "oh poor kid" when they cut your face off with a chainsaw.This argument that they are born that way is also futile. People are born single. You are saying that the COUPLE, who represent a counter-reproductive style of mating should have the same rights. I disagree.The individuals should have as much right to be gay as straight but a homosexual couple is worth more money in terms of pornography (especially for women) and less value reproductively.It is thus conclusive to say that whether they have more or less rights than a heterosexual couple ('normal' as you say) they will never warrant the same rights..
The immune system is iodine based

Considering that Nature shapes via Evolution, and 3/4 of the forces of Evolution are random, it stands to reason that Nature is capable of doing a shitty_job. Or, rather, that a doctor with an objective (curing disease) can do a better one. Vaccination works via the adaptive immune system, which recognizes foreign antigen in the body and destroys it. I'm not going to give you a crash course on immunology. You can do that for yourself here: https://en.wikipedia.org... Your sources are pseudoscience. Your "argument" is an unfounded accusation of malice. The only part you got right is that iodine is toxic. However, that is also why it cannot be involved in the immune system: it kills immune cells (all cells, for that matter). The only part of the body that uses iodine is the thyroid gland, and it's in the form of a trace element (an element required in minuscule amounts). Your claim that colds are an allergic response to grain consumption is "Not Even Wrong", and thus unworthy of rebuttal. https://en.wikipedia.org... Humans are actually able to digest grains, thanks to the last 10,000 years of our evolution (in which grains formed a large part of our diet). You have not, and cannot, meet burden of proof.