BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sons of Solidarity

I would like to take the time to thank The Brotherhood in joining me in this campaigning debate. To solidify our stance as a legitimate and viable party to join, The Sons of Solidarity would like to take the time to show our future members our code of conduct and our Charter of Constitution showing we are transparent and we support all members. Like any party we do have limitations and at Sons of Solidarity we do not tolerate religious rhetoric or religious views. We also have a firm stand on Communism. We oppose it 100%. Without further delay here is our Charter of Constitution 1.The Sons of Solidarity guarantee rights and freedoms to all it"s members as justified by a free demographic society where communism is shunned upon. 2.The Sons of Solidarity are entitled to freedom of thought, belief, opinions on DDO, and peaceful association 3.Every The Sons of Solidarity member has the right to vote on any debate/topic pending with the group 4.The Sons of Solidarity is governed by the President and founder Fanboy McTroll, all final conflicts and resolutions will be mediated and acted on by the President of The Sons of Solidarity 5.The Sons of Solidarity president will attend debates at least once every 6 months. 6.Every member of The Sons of Solidarity has the right to resign, quit or leave The Sons of Solidarity group at any time they feel justified for any reason without being discriminated against. 7.The Sons of Solidarity believes in life for all human beings and are against any speech encouraging genocide, murder outside of the law, turning of people into pig feed, or showing hatred to any race or religion, ie. Jewish people, Black people, Asian people or any other race or culture. 8.The Sons of Solidarity believes in all laws governing all countries they are instilled in. We do not encourage or break laws or perform any illegal operations of any kind. 9.Religion of any kind is not to be encouraged or used as a method of debate. The Sons of Solidarity view religion as a form of mental weakness and consider it a form of a weak minded individual. These type individuals have no place at The Sons of Solidarity as religion does not factor into any decision or life at The Sons of Solidarity. We strive for strong intellectual minds focused on careers, future and optimistic view of life. 10.Communism is considered evil by The Sons of Solidarity, anyone sympathetic to Russia, China, or any other communist nation is subject to banishment from The Sons of Solidarity. Communism should be taken down and destroyed, and any communist people should be viewed as the worst lying enemy combatants that should be eliminated.
Sons of Solidarity

Hello I will present my arguments on why you should not The Sons of Solidarity. - to uphold free speech but not hate speech against any other races, genders As such his first point already conflicts with his "free speech". In quotes "All members must be of sound mind, mental illness and religious views will not be tolerated and those members will be expelled. " For a group that advocate's for free speech they don't tolerate people with religious views? Lets compare this group to The Broterhood. The only rules are change your profile picture to a Brotherhood symbol, respect each others opinion, and follow the terms of service set by DDO. To even join this group you must fulfill all their prerequisites. Even if you have a different opinion on these topics you can't even join this group. This shows they are not inclusive. Look at The Brotherhood we are the most broad group with the belief that everyone has the right to free speech without prejudice towards them or their ideas. The Sons of Solidarity are very prejudice to the mental ill, and religious people. They aren't even allowed to share their idea nor be accepted into the group which shows they are not for the members of DDO. "stand by your fellow citizens, do not be politically correct to appease someone else. Believe in yourself and your views, do not change yourself". I ask the voters if this group is all about believing in yourself and your political views how come they have to have core values and even denying peoples opinions such as religious and communist ideology to not be accepted. If someone wants to join this group they will have to change their ideology which is I am sure not the President would wanted. I urge everyone to join The Brotherhood. We value Freedom of speech, we want to spread every ideology and not to hate it or even despite it but respect your fellow humans on their ideology.
Sons of Solidarity

The Sons of Solidarity is recruiting new members for their group of debating intellectuals. We stand stronger together!!! As the President of The Sons of Solidarity I would like to take the time to provide my platform for new members that want to join The Sons of Solidarity and provide some information on my back ground. As a true Patriot I believe in America and it's core values with few exceptions (amendment 2) (anti immigration) stand by your fellow citizens, do not be politically correct to appease someone else. Believe in yourself and your views, do not change yourself. The Sons of Solidarity key points are - to uphold free speech but not hate speech against any other races, genders - Pro Choice - For the Death Penalty - Anti gun laws - Anti Religion - Anti Communism All members must be of sound mind, mental illness and religious views will not be tolerated and those members will be expelled. The Sons of Solidarity neither promotes or encourages any violence by members of it's group.
It Better to Have Lived a Christian, Than to have Lived an Atheist.

I will be taking the Pro position for this debate, meaning I am debating in favor of the resolution. Definitions Christian - A Christian who adheres to and practices the teachings of Jesus Christ, worships God, and recognizes and obeys divine law. Better - Comparitive to good or well, in this case, it is more good (Including terms of overall happiness in life) to have lived the life of a good Christian, than to have lived the life of an Atheist. In this case, we will be debating who is "better" in terms of overall happiness in life (This will be most important in the debate), eithcal values, the positive affect given to others, and which is the overall "better" life to live. Other definitions will not be needed. Standard rules apply. Forfeit results in an automatic loss.
It Better to Have Lived a Christian, Than to have Lived an Atheist.

I will try to keep this last post as short and to the point as possible. Please keep in mind it is not my burden of proof to prove that it is better to have lived an atheist, simply that it is not necessarily better to have lived a Christian. If you remember in the very first round this debate Pro defined better as "Comparitive to good or well, in this case, it is more good (Including terms of overall happiness in life) to have lived the life of a good Christian, than to have lived the life of an Atheist. In this case, we will be debating who is "better" in terms of overall happiness in life (This will be most important in the debate), eithcal values, the positive affect given to others, and which is the overall "better" life to live. " As you can see, Pro divided the resolution up into 3 main categories: Overall happiness, ethical values, and positive affect given to others. I will go ahead and summarize these three categories throughout the debate. Overall happiness: Pro has said that Christians achieve more happiness thinking that an all knowing, all powerful God is looking over them than an atheist can achieve by means of anything else. This claim has been fairly unsupported besides the long term happiness vs. short term happiness argument which pro has claimed I dropped, but I actually had responded to it. I will post the response again just in case Pro skipped over it in the earlier rounds. Christians simply believe their happiness will be a longer term happiness than atheist. Besides that this has nothing to do with the level of happiness, none of the voters know if the Christians happiness will be longer term or eternal, and to vote Pro for this category would be extremely biased because you would have to actually assume Christianity to be true to confirm it. Ethical values: I feel as if this one is probably the most obvious of the three categories. Whether someone believes in objective moral values or not has no bearing on what kind of values they do have. While I am not obligated to make an argument that atheist have better ethical values, I think one example is certainly in regards to homosexuality. Not homosexuality itself, but simply the treatment of homosexuals by Christians has been horrendous and I would argue atheist treat them better. Positive effect given to others: I know I said that ethical values was the most obvious of the three but I must have forgot about this one. In round three Pro actually concedes this point by saying, "Never did I argue that the atheist cannot do as much good in the world as a Christian. " This is exactly what "positive effect given to others" is. Since this point is conceded I will not make any further arguments. I thoroughly enjoyed this debate started by Pro and I thank him for doing so. I hope that in light of this debate it can spark some interesting thoughts and conversations among other people. Thank you to all the readers and voters for your time. Have a great day.
Opinions are facts.

OpeningGood day to anyone who is reading this. I am WilliamsP, a member of this great site, debate.org. I am here to debate a very serious matter: I believe that opinions are facts. I would like to establish common ground. If an individual accepts this debate, he or she will need to use the same definition I am using of "fact". That definition is provided by Merriam-Webster. That definition is, "something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence." We will use the following definition of "opinion", also provided by Merriam-Webster: "a belief, judgment, or way of thinking about something : what someone thinks about a particular thing."I intend to have a highly serious, logical, enlightening debate. That is why I have put restrictions on who can accept this. I want the votes to be serious as well, which is why I have put Elo restrictions on who can vote. Whoever accepts this debate will need to acknowledge and abide by all the rules. The will be no forfeiture at all. Please do not accept this debate if you cannot committ. Forfeiture, regardless of the reason, will result in the loss of conduct points. Sources, no matter how small or large, will be cited in a logical format. Proper spelling and grammar will be used. Do not accept this debate if you cannot follow these very simple rules. This debate will have 5 rounds. Each debater will have 72 hours to respond with a maximum argument length of 10,000 characters. This debate will follow a specific and sophisticated structure. The first round will be simply acceptance and acknowledging the rules. The second round will be for main arguments. The third will be for final arguments and first rebuttals. The fourth round will be for counter-rebuttals. The fifth round will be strictly for conclusions, analyses, and summaries.I must repeat, do not accept this debate if you cannot committ and/or are not intending to make this debate serious and logical. Do not accept this if you cannot abide by the rules. If you are considering accepting this, please think about it before you do it. Thank you. I look forward to this.Works Cited1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Opinions are facts.

I will conclude with a few points of summation that also address my opponent's conclusion. 1. Whether this debate was intended to be semantic or not has little meaning when considering what made contesting this resolution possible. To have attacked it on other grounds would have virtually been debating a truism. 2. There is no need to directly offer rebuttal to specific arguments that rely solely on misinterpreted definitions. If one confuses capitalism and communism, I will not attack their evidence on political systems- rather their definition of said political systems. 3. I have been quite cautious in assuring that I do not stray from citing the direct wording of my opponents proposed definitions. Nevertheless, the portion about true existence vs. existence in general went uncontested.
Opinions are facts.

ConclusionI somewhat enjoyed this debate. Yet, I feel that my opponent has misinterpreted some things. First of all, this debate was never intended to be semantic. Secondly, my opponent has not provided direct rebuttals to my arguments. Thirdly, the main misinterstanding in this debate is definitions. My opponent could not accept my definitions, while I accepted his. Fourth, I made two arguments: logical and scientific. I argued about the definitions and then I argued about how the brain functions, which is undeniable. On the quantum level, everything is a fact. The brain's interpretation of "facts" and "opinions" and the processes associated with these are essentially identical. I understand my opponent's case. I really do. I simply have an issue with his interpretation of this debate and the general structure of his arguments. This is strictly my opinion, which, depending on the definitions, is fact, which I am arguing in this debate. Opinions are facts because they exist within the brain. Opinions are facts, not because they are necessarily true, but because they are real processes within the brain. I argued two things, even though my opponent focused on only one. My opponent has made a good case against the notion that opinions are facts, but I believe that my case was stronger. Please do not take away the conduct points simply because of these statements. This is my honest opinion, which I have a right to express. In conclusion, this debate was interesting, but it did have a few misunderstandings and misinterpretations. Thank you, and shall the better debater win! I wish my opponent good luck. If he wins, I accept defeat. If he loses, I will not be too proud and arrogant. I now close this entry to this debate.
Opinions are facts.

I will once again reiterate my contention in the hopes that it will be directly addressed in this final round. To begin, I will address my opponent's question as to why I have failed to provide sources. As my only contention with my opponents proposition is his interpretation of the definitions that we have agreed upon, I can offer no material evidence. As I said, my only contention is a semantic one. I will state for a final time my main contention with my opponent's interpretation. Existence and Fact are not intrinsically synonymous. Our duty, then, is to determine why that is. In our mutually agreed upon definition, we see that a fact is defined as something that truly exists and has actual existence. Why must the dictionary quantify facts this way? Surely the dictionary is not using more words then necessary simply for the purpose of redundancy. It is because the difference between abstract existence and tangible fact is the actuality or "trueness" of the subject in question. That being qualified, not all opinions are facts although all opinions exist, and my opponent's conclusion does not stand.
Opinions are facts.

RebuttalsMy opponent makes great arguments, I must admit. However, these arguments contradict the rules I have implemented in this debate. They go against my definitions. They are accurate, yes, but they follow a different route than mine. My view of this matter, as my opponent pointed out correctly, is "A=B, B=C, therefore A=C." Well, in this particular case, that statement is true. It corresponds with the definitions I provided. It corresponds with the evidence I have presented.My opponent tries to contradict my statements by claiming "A=B, B=C + Truth, so therefore A=/=C." This is semi-true, taken into consideration the definitions and the circumstances, I see my opponent's case. I really do. However, it does not follow the definitions I made evident. Really, this debate has both sides. Both sides, as a matter of fact, are correct. However, depending on the exact definitions provided, one of these two sides will be more correct. In this debate, given the provided definitions, I am more correct. Perhaps my opponent has interpreted this debate as a semantic one. I believe the interpretation to be wrong, but that is my view. Given the definitions, provided the circumstances, I believe I am correct. Also, I would like to ask, why has my opponent not utilized sources? Of course, his arguments are logical and they work, but a source or two would strengthen his arguments. I am a 14-year old, and I am not really experienced with semantic debates - if this debate is truly semantic, as my opponent claims. However, I am still confident that my stance is the correct one.
Opinions are facts.

My opponent seems to miss the point of my original contention. If this debate were simply "Opinion=Existence, Existence=Fact, Opinion=Fact" it would not be a debate at all. I did in fact accept my opponents definitions provided in round one, but I never agreed to accept his interpretations of those definitions. So, I will briefly re-summarize my previously stated argument in a way that hopefully sheds more clarity on where I am coming from. 1. Opponent's View: A=B, B=C, therefore A=C 2. My Contradiction: A=B, B=C+Truth(or objective reality),therefore A=/=C necessarily This debate becomes a semantic one not because I disagree with my opponents definitions, but because he overlooks key terms in said definitions. "Actual existence". "Truly exists". This implies that there are things that exist in a technical abstract sense of the word, but do not actually and truly exist. That is where my contention of objective reality or "truth" comes in as the necessary variable between opinion and fact. Were this debate labeled "Opinions exist" my duty here today would be much more burdensome. However, I have shown that there is additional necessary criteria for a technically existing opinion to become a truly existing fact.
Opinions are facts.

As I begin debating this topic, I am compelled to first clarify to potential voters that this is by necessity a deductive argument from definition. To claim that placing the main contention of this debate on a semantic issue would by any means reduce the impact of the debate is incorrect. This debate is by necessity a semantic one. That being established, I move on to my argument. P1: Existence Is Not Synonymous With Factuality One would be hard-pressed to claim that existence guarantees fact. Existence is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as the fact or state of existing; actual possession of being. This debate is, however, not about whether opinions exist or are real. This debate is whether opinions are facts. There is a necessary fact of existence pertaining to opinions, but not necessarily a fact of factuality. So the main fallacy in my opponent"s case is that he claims that existence guarantees factuality. This is not the case. If we look further into my opponent"s definitions, we see key terms that contradict his inference of opinions being fact. His definition claims that facts must both truly exist and that they must have actual existence. This being established, we move to my second premise. P2: Opinions Are Not Always True Opinions may exist subjectively, but are not absolutes and are not true in an objective sense of the word. Beliefs, judgments, and ultimately opinions undeniably exist in the abstract sense of the word, but are neither ultimately true or actual. They are subjective, generally false, and exist only to the point that they are real. Beyond that, opinions are not true or actual, and as such are not facts. C: Truth Negates Opinions As Not All Opinions Can Be True, So Opinions Are Not Facts.
Using the Death Penalty

Okay, Let's try this again. "The death penalty is a very useful strategy aged back to nearly the 1600's" There's more proof to show that it is ineffective at stopping crime. Over the course of history this has been enforced as means of intimidation by governments to control the populace. Not as an effective means of stopping crime. Going outside of the US, There are a ton of cases of people being wrongfully executed around the world for crimes they did not commit. "It has proved to be effective towards keeping a prison population down and to punish someone for doing something cruel. " Controlling the total number of inmates in a prison is not a justification for taking a human life. There is also no proof that it is an effective punishment for people who commit heinous crimes. "I believe that if someone was to take the soul of another form of life, Their life deserves to perish. " This does not justify use of the death penalty. This is an opinion. "Although it may be against our beliefs to take someone's life, At least the person will not get out and do it repeatedly. " How do you know that they won't change in prison? There are many cases of people seeing the error of their ways and changing their life for the better. Rather than killing them, Why not help them to change their ways? "And let's face it, Most likely if someone murdered another human they are looking forward to 20+ years of prison. If someone is due to serve life then they should be executed because either way they will be killed in prison. " This still fails to justify use of the death penalty.
Using the Death Penalty

To start the argument, The death penalty is a very useful strategy aged back to nearly the 1600's. If has proven to be effective towards keeping a prison population down and to punish someone for doing something cruel. I believe that if someone was to take the soul of another form of life, Their life deserves to perish. Although it may be against our beliefs to take someone's life, At least the person will not get out and do it repeatedly. And let's face it, Most likely if someone murdered another human they are looking forward to 20+ years of prison. If someone is ue to serve life then they should be executed because either way they will be killed in prison. Contender's Turn
Using the Death Penalty

I will be arguing against the use of the death penalty. I'm not going to address the crimes for which you believe the death penalty should be enforced as I do not believe that is relevant to the debate. With that being said; I believe that the death penalty should not be used because: 1) The death penalty has proven to be ineffective at deterring major crime. 2) The death penalty can cause and has caused innocent people to be wrongfully executed for crimes that they did not commit. Arguments will posted in R2.
Evolution is, on balance, less desirable than Creationism as being the truth behind our origin.

I don't think that you understood the resolution. You are debating that Creationism is less desirable than evolution.Anyway, the reason is that if we are all here by natural selection then every single error we ever made and every flaw we have is no one's fault but our own. We deserve to be abused and stomped all over and bullying and rape are all acceptable ways of ensuring natural selection's success.Creationism allows one to both have self esteem whilst accepting that their flaws are merely there so that a greater system of beauty can take place; one beyond human comprehension and a beauty that can only be understood in the afterlife. This not only makes one more content with failure and death but also explains why, no matter how flawed or vulnerable another is, one shouldn't take advantage of it as it is not there to be abused for natural selection but rather to be appreciated as a part of a grand masterpiece.