BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Smart men prefer to marry/date smart women than dumb women.

Merry Christmas SocialistRI82 and thank you for taking this challenge.:) I think you are a smart man! Jane Austin, Pride and Prejudice - "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife". Gentlemen prefer Brains. You are right,"Smart men prefer what they determine they wish to seek in a woman". I believe that a smart man is looking for a best friend who will share his dreams for the future. In a smart man's ideal world, he 'd be able to have dinner with his wife and talk about what's going in at the office-his projects, his career-and ask her about hers in return. He is looking for some back-and-forth discussion, some advice, and a real sense of mutual engagement. In a recent Mathc.com poll, 74 percent of women thought men would be intimidated by accomplished women, but a full 62 percent of men said no way: They aren't afraid of dating or marrying career women(Deborah Siegel,"The New Trophy Wife",Psychology Today, Feb. 2004). Conventional wisdom has it that men are intimidated by, or less attracted to, women who makes as much money as they do or more. This thinking holds that men prefer the image of the male provider bringing home the bacon to an appreciative wife and children tucked away at home. But times are changing, and high-achieving young men don't perceive salary as an obstacle. For some high earners, it is a non issue, and for lower earners, it is an added plus!!
Smart men prefer to marry/date smart women than dumb women.

-Although this is a funny debate to be having, I'll debate it for the hell of it. I think that men are very egotistical by nature. Many men are intimidated by women who are smart and beautiful. They see female intelligence as a threat to a potential relationship. A smart, and good looking guy may think twice about getting involved with an intelligent woman. He may feel that his assets/reputation may be at risk of being reduced through a plot by a woman. He may come to distrust smart women on the merit that they will scheme and plot. Let us use Hilary Clinton as an example. She is in fact very smart. I wonder if she did not have any political aspirations whether she would have taken Bill for all he's worth. This is a case and point example of what I'm describing. Due to her intelligence she can manipulate, dominate, and keep in fear her husband Bill. Had Bill married as "dumb" woman he may not have had to deal with any of this simply because he could have lied, or manipulated her with his superior intellect. However this is not the case. Seeing as she is intelligent she can keep him under her thumb. Basically men fear, and are resistant to the concept of marrying "smart" women. -The idea of marrying "down" as you describe it has a very simple concept, control. Men tend to marry "down" in an effort to maintain control of the relationship. He may have insecurities about her cheating, or being smarter, or having the control. Generally that is why men marry "down". -Frankly your premise that smart men prefer smart women is wrong on its foundation. Smart men prefer what they determine they wish to seek in a woman. Smart men may favor looks over intelligence, or personality over intelligence, or whatever over intelligence. To say that for a man to be smart he must desire smart women is flawed, and false. Men seek what they find are desirable characteristics in women. I doubt that intelligence is the only factor being weighed. -To put this as easily as possible, to each his own. Men pursue whoever they want. -(Just to let you know I personally consider myself to be "smart" and I personally value intelligence in women. My girlfriend has much more schooling than I, and I consider her academically superior to me. We have a great relationship which is based on equality and love. I have spoken above as a general argument which some males do subscribe to.)
Smart men prefer to marry/date smart women than dumb women.

Media, news have given us an impression that men have little problem "marrying/dating down": seeking out wives/girlfriends who are less intelligent and financially dependent yet adoring. So what happens when more and more women themselves become wealthy, educated and ambitious? When single successful women in their 20s and 30s meet for dinner and between classes to talk about love and relationship, they frequently ask themselves: Are men intimidated by smart women? Is he going to break up with me when he finds out I make more than he does? Are there men out there who are actually attracted to my intelligence and share my goals and ambitions for the future. Are men having a hard time accept women can have both brian and beauty? Are high-achieving women at a disadvantage in the marriage/dating market? I don't believe so! I believe high-achieving women are more likely to get married and have happy, healthy relationships as they pursue their career dreams. Smart men are more likely to marry smart women!
Jesus had biological siblings

I accept this challenge; however, I want to clarify some things:1.) My opponent and I are both Christians; there will be no discourse there, as we are both firm believers of the Holy Bible.2.) The resolution is impossible, as Jesus was not Joseph's biological son. I will be arguing that Jesus had half-siblings, meaning, that Joseph and Mary had other children along with Jesus.3.) I will be using the NIV translation of the Bible.Good luck to my friend!
Jesus had biological siblings

I am of the belief that Jesus had no biological siblings and that the Bible does not teach this. I hope my opponent will accept this challenge and engage in this discussion of theological truth. Rules : (1) Round 1 is for acceptance and amendments to rules only. (2) Rounds 2-4 are rebuttal rounds. No new arguments may be made in round 4. (3) Con will undertake the full burden of proof. (4) All sources must be referenced.
Decentralized Libertarian socialism(pro) versus Democratic Capitalism(con)

I agree to go by the rules, but won't argue this round. One thing this debate lacks so far is a clear resolution or purpose. What does it mean for one ideology to be 'better'? I propose whichever benifits the populous, or at least the majority, to a higher degree is ultimately a better system. Obviously there isn't going to be one ideology completely superior to the other, otherwise this debate wouldn't be happening. As such, in this debate we will see which system makes the least significant compromises and whether it would be in a Western nation's interest to adopt either democratic-leaning Capitalism or Liberal-socialism. The purpose of this round is to define our stance. I told my opponent I would argue for Democratic Capitalism, which, from what I understand, involves slightly more government intervention (i. e. taxation and moderate regulation) than complete free-market or Lassez-fairy capitalism but definitely not to the point where a citizen or corporation is economically constricted by the government, and the nation doesn't look like a complete welfare state. The system is based on private legal entities owning means of production for profit. Wikipedia defines it: "Democratic capitalism, also known as capitalist democracy, is a political, economic and social ideology that involves the combination of a democratic political system with a capitalist economic system. It is based on a tripartite arrangement of a private sector-driven market economy based predominantly on a democratic policy, economic incentives through free markets, fiscal responsibility and a liberal moral-cultural system which encourages pluralism. [1][2] This ideology supports a capitalist economy subject to control by a democratic political system that is supported by the majority. It stands in contrast to corporatism by limiting the influence of special interest groups, including corporate lobbyists, on politics. " (I'd just like to clarify, the liberal moral-cultural system is about classical liberalism, which emphasises liberty. This is quite different to modern or neo-liberalism. ) Basically, it's the type of capitalism already in place in English-speaking western nations. Co-operative businesses can and do exist in capitalist societies and share some common features. You could look at 'libertarian-socialism' as 'collective capitalism', in a way. However, for the purpose of this debate I will argue capitalist businesses in a capitalist society and democratic government are better for a nation's populous.
Decentralized Libertarian socialism(pro) versus Democratic Capitalism(con)

I am challenging the user, Ozzie to this debate. Rules of debate: 1) Round 1 should be used for definitions of your ideology, acceptance, and agreement upon rules. We will each go by the definition that the other person provides for their ideology. Note: if con wishes to do so, they can post their first arguments in round 1. I would suggest using a google doc(or other link to your argument) to do so if you choose to do this. The reason why is to make sure you can use 10,000 characters for the debate only. Since you need to provide a definition of your ideology, that would take up some characters and would thus be unfair to con if they chose to also use round 1 for debate, since they would be limited on characters. If con chooses to use round 1 for debate, the google doc shouldn't go over 10,000 characters, and they should waive round 5 in order to keep the debate rounds even between us. 2) Burden of proof is shared equally since we are each taking affirmative stances(and neither of us is taking only a negatory stance), where one of us is pro-libertarian socialism and the other is pro-democratic capitalism. 3) The debate structure will be as follows, where only 4 rounds are used for debate: First round used for debate will just be main arguments. If you are second to post your main arguments, you should not rebut anything made by your opponent. Second round used for debate can be an extension on your main arguments, a rebuttal to your opponents main arguments, or a combination of both. Third and fourth rounds used for debate should just be rebuttal and/or defense against your opponent's rebuttals. No new arguments should be made in these two rounds. 4) No personal attacks, ad hominem, or insults. Violation of any of the above rules means that voters should choose the point for conduct to go to the one who did not violate these rules, or who did so to a lesser extent. If con has an objection to any of the above rules, say so in comments and we can work it out. Definitions: Libertarian socialism: "a group of anti-authoritarian political philosophies inside the socialist movement that rejects socialism as centralized state ownership and control of the economy, as well as the state itself. It criticizes wage labour relationships within the workplace. Instead, it emphasizes workers' self-management of the workplace and decentralized structures of political organization." [1] Thus, when I say "decentralized" libertarian socialism, the "decentralized" part refers to the socialism itself(not the government, since libertarian socialism is already about decentralized government). As opposed to having all companies democratically controlled by every person in a society, instead, this is done on a smaller level: where the workers of a company are the ones with democratic control of their company and not other people who have nothing to do with the company. If this is not clear, con should ask questions in the comments section, and I'll explain it another way there. Sources: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
life is just stupid

Life is stupid. Almost 50yrs old I'm tired of eating,sleeping,working,sex,kids,marriage,tv,jobs etc etc etc etc--it's the same crap everyday and the only real difference is looking in the mirror every morning watching my face get older and my body pain etc. The beauty of our planet is boring too after seeing the same views year after year. There are no answers to Aliens,Bigfoot,God,Agartha etc etc so as I sit and ponder about all that life is I have come to the conclusion it is stupid.there is just birth-filler-death, it's stupid and people are full of crap. I look forward to death even if it scares me,at least this crap will be over. Don't miss understand me, my life has not been full of tragedy etc--it just seems stupid to me and I never want to do it again.
Should English be the oficial language in US

1. Many people speak different languages in every country. Regardless, if a country's main language makes up 80% of the entire population should make it its official language. 2. What do you mean, "English isn't the only language"? Of course it isn't, but only Mandarin outranks it in world speakers. English is number one in America by a long shot, and the number one official language in the world. It doesn't make sense to have it not be the U.S.'s. 3. Less than 13% of the country speaks Spanish, and the rest make up an even smaller percentage. Such a small percentage should totally justify English becoming the main language, with Spanish being perhaps a secondary language. Also, since when has getting less people in this country been a bad thing? In case you haven't noticed, our country is in a state of disrepair, and a good portion of it is immigrants jumping on jobs for lower wages. This isn't a political thing or a rightist or leftist thing; this is fact.Vote for the better debater.
Military Video Game Funding and Contest

I don't believe there should be 'players' controlling millions of dollars worth of robotics from a contest. If something similar were to occur, it would be used by professionals in the military. This is not a sweepstakes. This is war, they probably don't want to take a chance that you will mess up on the battlefield with their robot. Like I said earlier, AI doesn't have clear human consciousness, and would therefore be inferior to the opposing human beings. Robots should stay away from war, and go into places where they really belong, such as homes of the elderly. It could be their robotic personal assistant. It will be more helpful this way than to get blown up in mere seconds on the battlefield.
Military Video Game Funding and Contest

I have seen this video before, and to this day, I'm fascinated about how they program it to do that! Anyway, while these are great inventions and have great potential, I don't think robots, even if they are improved, should be on the battlefield. Logical humans on the other side can figure out ways to destroy these robots. While it will save soldiers lives, if we keep losing robots it will make the government lose money, and thus worsening the economy. When a soldier signs up to be in the army, he or she is dedicating their life to the army. Personally, I don't think robots will never gain a consciousness as clearly as humans do, which will cause them to lose in war.
Military Video Game Funding and Contest

Thanks! There's not much more to debate about, so I'm going to use this as my final words. Robots could never completely replace the human, even if the human is sitting behind a gaming console to control this 'robot'. Since your'e doing the controlling anyway, you might as well be on the battlefield where you have more control. I think you are thinking too much into a fantasy world and hoping it will come real one day. I'm afraid to say that this will probably never happen. Thanks for debating, and I wish that the voters choose wisely! :)
I am the most intelligent person on this website

"Easy argument for me to win." >>So this just proves that you aren't the most intelligent person on debate.org. This is not an easy argument to win, for one particular reason. That being, you made this debate 1 round long. You are asking to be destroyed. =) "Seeing as how I am the oldest, that makes me the best as older people have been scientifically proven to be smarter than younger people. " >>Prove to me you are the oldest. How do we know that you are not lying about your age. You could tell me that no one would have the lack of integrity to lie about their age. In which case "webmaster" beats you. He is allegedly 100 years old. Sucks. Secondly where is your scientific proof of this. I would very much disagree. George Bush more intelligent than every college student out their? So now onto generals. Your name...Adolph_hitler_rules, i'd say that makes you rather unintelligent. But hey, if you have some kind of crazy justification for that. Congrats. Your IQ, lacking. http://www.highiqsociety.org... While i'm not saying IQ is the only factor to intelligence I think it can still be used in a mildly general sense. Check it out. So next. Your very last debate that you made, "Drinking, Driving, and shoplifting are cool activities." That sounds like an absolute truth. They don't exist, such a resolution is subjective to everyone. I disprove your resolution by saying, "they are not cool" Sorry. Voters: Vote for me..... I don't know what more I can say. Socrates: "I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing."
Yo mama jokes

Alright fine we`ll do it you`r way. Let me start by saying that you`r very wrong on the fact that yo mama jokes are only amusing to males, I`ve already heard lots of female insult other peoples moms. The proper definition of sexist is a discrimination of a certain gender (http://www.thefreedictionary.com... ) and yo mama jokes isn`t really saying that women's are stupid it`s just entertaining humour, and we don`t say yo papa jokes cause in the old times were started people didn`t really have a father and lives only with there mothers ( http://www.answerbag.com... )
Yo mama jokes

You still haven't defended your miswording of the resolution. If you had wanted to debate which "yo mama" joke is better, you should have worded the resolution like, "Yo Mama Joke Battle" and defined the type of debate this would be in your round 1 argument. From what you provided, you are arguing for "yo mama" jokes (meaning they're funny), while I am arguing the opposite. And you haven't refuted my sexism argument. Yo mama jokes are sexist because they degrade women; yo mama jokes are only funny to males; it would be less sexist if, say, there were yo papa jokes as well as yo mama jokes.
Dissociative Identity Disorder is Real

This debate was meant to be accepted by one specific person, not you. The cause of DID is known to be excessive abuse , normally during childhood. Possibly with a genetic predisposition. When someone experiences abuse that is to such an extent that they cannot possess it, they will sometimes fracture of that memory from themselves which grows into another personality. DID is essentially a coping mechanism to protect an individual from their own experiences. DID also happens to be in the dsm. The first D in DID, Dissociative, can easily be expressed. Disassociation of some extent is quite common, a mild form of dissociation is day dreaming. I've also experienced more so forms of dissociation in the form of flash backs and sometimes during autistic meltdowns losing control of my body all together and feeling like I'm just watching it happen. The first D is a given in traumatic experiences. The alters in this case make prefect sense to vary by system. DID is a personalized disorder, it would be weird for someone who has never heard of fairies to have a fairy alter for instance, though it would make sense for someone who watched a lot of fairy shows or was interested in mythology. Do to the nature of DID it would be odd for all systems to be alike. Some symptoms are alike, for instance the roles an alter may have, co consciousness experiences, and holes in their memory. As far as I can tell most people with DID doubt they have it at first, and one would have to be an amazing actor to fake it. Some links to check out: https://www.healthyplace.com... https://link.springer.com...
Dissociative Identity Disorder is Real

I"ll begin by saying that there"s an inherent challenge in questioning an unfalsifiable claim such as this one. Google "Russell"s teapot in space" if you want a further explanation. First, there"s no evidence of a cause(s) of dissociate identity disorder [DID]. There"s not even evidence for the disorder itself, not to mention any way to quantify or falsify it. For example, although psychopathy isn"t listed in the DSM there"s still a universal way to measure it, with a checklist [Hare"s checklist]. Psychopathy also has causes that are similar among such subjects"childhood trauma, violence, etc. This means that the causes of psychopathy are valid and we"re therefore able to predict and develop a list of risk factors because these subjects report very similar upbringings/symptoms. The only similarity with people claiming to have DID is simply that they have more than one "self". Everything else is arbitrary, such as the number of "selves" or "personalities". So, this round of my argument is dedicated to the fact that DID has no empirical value. It"s simply based off of the words of the patient. DID has little validity and reliability because each subject varies pretty dramatically [i. e. number of personalities, genders of personalities, consistency in attitudes of personalities].
Dissociative Identity Disorder is Real

FollowerofChrist1955 is the only one I want accepting this. For voters: http://www.debate.org... I forgot about the debate as my memory sucks. I am re challenging you as to finish the debate. The idea of everything being "Unspecified Mental illness" as I said before, just doesn't allow for proper treatment. And you are very off topic. I have been in the mental health system for years as a client, and can tell you that though some people only care about a pay check (And I've mostly seen that in special ed staff or those who use abusive forms of therapy like traditional ABA), most mental health workers really care about their clients. That is why they studied psychology in the first place. Mental health issues are very rarely diseases. In fact DID is a coping mechanism to help with severe trauma. I in no way see how I am making an "Atheists argument". As a devout christian I am simply stating truths so far.