BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Naturalized citizens should be allowed to run for the presidency.

That sounds as far fetched as they come. Before 9/11 columbine was the worst terrorist act that ever happened on American soil, and guess what, he was an American. What determines if a person will do right or wrong is not his nationality, but his personal convictions. allowing naturalized citizens to run for presidency is not a question of a person getting his papers and then running for the highest office in the land. It's a question of voters following a person's career from mayor to governor, and analyzing what he has done with the responsibility that he has had, and then deciding on those personal convictions, and not nationality. I think that is what makes a great president and allowing Naturalized citizens to run actually empowers the people. They are now in charge to decide if a candidates personal convictions and political career line up with whats best for the nation. Until we undo that policy we are telling the people of America that they are not wise in their voting, that the government needs to pose restrictions on who they can or can't. I don't believe in that and I think America is better than that. Just as Ronald Reagen believed, the people are wise enough to choose for themselves what is best for them. And that includes who is best for them.
is this a great tale from the Arabian Nights-newly discovered tale

con says "My opponent first needs to prove that this story is actually from a tale of 1001 nights. Then we can argue about the quality of the work." just go to the tale 566-578 "The city of Brass" in volume to of M,C,Lyons translation "The Arabian Nights Tales of 1001 Tales" Penguin, Books2010 ,p.511-548
Computers can replace human teachers

This is the first argument that I would like to give against the motion. I agree that some aspects of the educational system are already provided by the computer and yes, it is definitely true that you don't need a person to learn everything - education is a largely personal matter. However, if we eliminate the teacher-student interaction completely, a part of the educational experience will be lost. It's not just the act of standing before a class that makes a teacher a teacher, there's the whole social experience of learning - the working together, bouncing ideas off of one another, etc. People are always complaining about the loss of social contact that has come with the age of technology I fail to imagine what they'd be saying if the computer became the new teacher.
premarital sex shouldn't be considered wrong per the old testament for males

Ok i see your point, but you needed to define pre-marital sex. I will define it as sex with someone who you are not married to. And for this we need to look deeper. I will show how the new testament scriptures reveal the old testament. Malachi 3:6 ("I the LORD do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.) 1. Matthew 5:28 (But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.) this is from Jesus a.k.a. God in flesh. This is relevant to prove what lust is. After all you won't willingly want to have pre-marital sex with someone if you don't lust after them. 2. John 1:1 (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.) This scripture proves that Jesus Christ was around even before the old testament was written making his words in the new testament relevant to the old testament. If you don't believe that the new testament is relevant to the old i can refer you to Malachi 3:6 ("I the LORD do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.) 3. In conclusion I have proved that the old testament does prove that any form of lust is sinful, pre-marital sex is lust, due to the fact that Jesus himself says so and also due to the fact that God never changes. If Jesus held this view that lust is always wrong, it means that it was wrong even in the old testament. By the way, I don't understand why you are trying to make this argument in the first place. with all due respect this argument is completely in its entirety is useless. The bible says Romans 8:2 (because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.). The old testament laws no longer apply because Jesus died for our sins and gave us redemption. I am curious to know why you would want to argue this in the first place.
premarital sex shouldn't be considered wrong per the old testament for males

Yes it does say that pre-marital sex is wrong for men in the old testament.Exodus 20:14. It is literally one of the ten commandments, "You must not commit adultery." Adultery in this sense means any form of sexual immorality. It also says in Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel." In this scripture it even implies punishment for premarital sex. Are you satisfied with that answer?
premarital sex shouldn't be considered wrong per the old testament for males

In that case there are no scriptures in the old testament that say anything specifically about premarital sex for men. But what i can tell you is that God never changes, and if God finds any form of lust unacceptable in the new testament, then it means that he also felt the same way about old testament as well. Besides, the old testament is not valid in today's times anyway. Even Jews don't follow the commands of the old. No religion in the modern day follow all the commands of the old testament. The purpose of a debate is to find truth in something so that we can apply it to our daily lives and to inform others. This debate in general doesn't do any of that. This entire debate is worthless because the old testament no longer applies to us.
That the DDO Elite Exists

My opponent has defined the DDO elite as a secret society. According to Google when I type in secret society and define, this comes up."nounan organization whose members are sworn to secrecy about its activities."It is not enough to prove that a popular group of members has a disproportionate amount of influence over DDO, he must prove those popular members form a secret organization, with a secret agenda, and are intentionally working together to meet the same ends.In any social setting whether it be online or not, there is inevitabley going to be some social hierarchy. There are natural born leaders who have people look up to them and pay them a lot of respect, deserved or not. I ask my opponent to prove this secret society and remind him and the judges that proving a small group of members are influential and friendly with each other is not enough.Often times in social environments, a small group of wolves Come to lead the pack. Many people may speculate that they work together, but honestly the wolves tend to leave each other alone, because wolves are scary as fvck. I do request that my opponent out the names of some of this groups members. This is because it will stroke those members egos, and why not make somebody's day brighter?
That the DDO Elite Exists

This is a very controversial subject, and I am looking forward to debating it.Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: ArgumentsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Counter-RebuttalsRound 5: ConclusionDDO Elite: a secret society consisting of senior DDO members. These members have been apart of DDO for several years and are usually in the top 10% in debating, forum posts, &etc.By accepting you understand that you will attempt to prove that the DDO Elite does not exist.BoP is shared.
Feminism is not needed in America anymore and is corrupting some minds.

Response to B) They do have gender equality. They may be a victim of sexism but so are men. Response to the whole wage gap) Many different people have used many different equations to determine the wage gap. Some find it to be 77 some find it to be 82 some find it to be 91 so that may show that the whole wage gap is misleading. Also, women fresh out of college no family actually make more than men. So the "wage gap" is actually effecting men. Also, I do not have a reliable source for this but I heard that they do not determine the "wage gap" on the actual jobs but the job fields. If this is true then the wage gap is not creditable. And when you say how the mom is the one who takes care of the kid. No one makes her take care of the child after she has given birth. God made women the ones who give birth and we can not change that but no one is making the women the ones who care for children. Adoption or ask the father. Response to 3) Rape culture does not exist. Yes more women are raped then men but that does not change the fact the men are raped too. The fact is that both genders are raped and its horrible I don't see how the statics of male compared to female rape victims matters. Also, yes they may have set up rape centers but they base these centers on women not as much men. Response to 4) I'm not saying men are 60% more skilled i'm saying the men that are in the government are just more skilled at the moment than the women who are challenging them. What I mean by this is that pick the more skilled person. Yes women are 50% of the population but does that mean we should hire women just because they are women. No, we should hire based on skill. If a man has more skill for a job that is male dominated then why not hire the man? If a women has a better skill level for a job that is female dominated hire the female. Don't hire based on gender or race but on skill. I am sorry if I am not making these statements are clear but I am new at this.
Feminism is not needed in America anymore and is corrupting some minds.

Feminism use to be a great movement. I am totally for gender equality and women have that in America. Here are some arguments I have heard. A) The "wage gap" Some feminist think that women make around 77 cents to a mans dollar. Now as this may be true the reason this is true is due to the fact that women are more likely to work 35 to 39 hours a week when men are 4x more likely to work 40+ hours. And when women go into labor and have children when they come back there male counterparts will have more experience. Also, the fact that men are more likely to go into dangerous but more highly paying jobs. Now on that fact there are many different thoughts on whether it is based on how the brain is different between males and females or society but they have equal opportunity to work in those fields. B) Many (I don't know the exact statistic) women will be raped. Now what I am about to say buy no means do I support or feel bad for rapist it is horrible and sick. I would like to know what feminism can do about rape? Many rapist don't see women as sex objects or less than men but they crave sex. How they get it is sick and horrible but this is not due to sexism just the fact the they crave sex and will do disgusting things to get that. Not to mention many rapist are mentally ill. C) Women are not shown enough in high level jobs political or not. Now women have the opportunity to be in these jobs just like men. Look at Hilary. Me, I am against Hilary but if she makes it then good for her. Women can and will make it as high of a level job that men have been and are. Now for the fact that men dominate political jobs. Now this is my thought not really facts but men have had more rights than women longer than women have had equal rights. This means that women have not had the time men have had to get into office. Now this may be sad but it's true and that may be one reason. Another is that some people argue the senate and other political groups should be 50/50 males and females. The question here isn't why are we not allowing as many women into the government but it should be who is best for the job. If a man is better than the women hire him. If the women is better than the man hire her. This is my argument on how Feminism is not needed in America as much or at all anymore.
the judgement of anubis

Well Vi_spex buddy, as are all your debates, this one is pure nonsense, but I have time to kill, and feel like having a bit of fun right now. Besides, all my serious debates get one to zero votes, so what does it really matter? Soda=$1.52 at the corner market. Soda equals a monetary amount, therefore soda equals money. Soda is, in fact, money. The holes in your teeth cost money, just like soda, which probably created the holes. The soda pours over your teeth like chainsaws, and the dentist pokes and scrapes at your teeth. He tortures you. You are a masochist, because you pay him to torture you. He smiles, because he sees money in the holes of your teeth. So yes, the holes in your teeth is money, but only for the dentist. The judgement of gods falls into the holes in your teeth. My heart was indeed weighed, but I tracked Frankenstein down, and got it back. He was interested in your teeth, but I told him they had holes in them, and he changed his mind. I have already gone to hell, for I cannot locate the remote ... the feather is lonely. If you need energy, then why do you wonder what your power is without energy? I mean, wouldn't your body already be answering that question? A stone tablet doesn't require batteries, so it doesn't matter of the battery is low. I suppose you could always attach the battery to yourself somehow, to get some energy. On the brighter side, since the battery is low, the result won't be too shocking. Of course, if your gave up your non-existence habit, you wouldn't have an energy problem to begin with. You can offer your habit to the gods if you want to, but I don't think they want it. I can't pause the TV. I haven't turned it on yet ... still can't find the remote.
the judgement of anubis

soda isnt money, holes in my teeth is money.. gods judgement is negative emotional consequence or attachment.. for your heart has been weighed if a feather can not make you pause your tv.. you go to hell the weakness of my power is my need for energy.. for what is my power without energy.. a stone tablet as but a stone.. a low battery.. forfitting the energy i get from my habbit to non existence.. offer to the gods.. pause the tv
Christianity is Not as Dangerous as Islam

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I won't be able to keep this up to the end. I must forfeit. But first, to save face, I'll prove that I did indeed have an argument. Debunk it in your head if you wish. There are three kinds of "Christians." Note I said "Christian" instead of Christian because they may or may not fit the Biblical description of Christian. Anyway, they are "Militant" Christians, "Lazy" Christians, and "True" Christians. Militant Christians will kill you if you don't convert to Christianity. They are harmful to society. Lazy Christians are weak in their faith. Some of them may be hypocrites, but they're simply jerks. They don't hurt or help society. And note that posting something threatening on Facebook does not make you a militant Christian unless you carry out whatever kind of threat posted. Then there are True Christians. They provide ministries to the poor, the homeless, the widows, etcetera. They are beneficial to society. If you consider a total view of history, Militant Christians seem to have had a greater impact on the world than True Christians. I admit it. However, in the modern day there are a lot more True Christians than Militant Christians. Perhaps in the obscure corners of the United States there's some guy who blew up an abortion clinic or someone who stabbed an atheist professor. But that's rare. Many churches, on the other hand, have ministries for the poor or other groups in need. Therefore, in the modern day Christianity does more good than bad. Next, let's consider Islam. I'll use the same three categories for them: Militant Muslim, Lazy Muslim, and True Muslim. I don't think there are any Muslim hospitals or Muslim charity organizations here in America. Not that many, that is. I've never seen one before. However, the Militant Muslims here in the US did kill 3000 people on September 11, 2001 and they did blow up the Boston Marathon recently. There's plenty more where that came from. And in the Middle East, they may have established more charity stuff than they have here, but for every patient treated by a Muslim hospital there is someone who was killed by a Muslim militant. In other words, in the modern day Islam does more bad than good. Okay, that's all. Debunk it in your head if you want, but I'm afraid I must forfeit. You win.
immunizations for babies

In conclusion, 1. Vaccinations help protect babies against deadly and destructive diseases, viruses, bacterium and other infections. In essence, they save millions upon millions of lives. 2. Vaccinations for babies (in particular) are necessary, because they eventually stop receiving antibodies from their mother (which they need for protection). 3. SOME vaccinations may cause MINOR complications, such as a rash or small fever, but in reality these "side effects" are infinitely better for a child than the threats that you are vaccinated for. 4. Most (sane) people feel a sense of moral obligation to vaccinate their children and protect them and their health/safety/well-being so long as they have the ability to do so. It helps that vaccinations are almost always covered by medical insurance or Medicare and Medicaid, etc. 5. On a final note, most if not all schools (and colleges) require their students to have vaccinations in order to attend. Although I can make many more arguments for my position, I don't feel a longer list is necessary; my opponent failed to engage me in any type of real debate thus far. I thank you for this challenge, though, and hope I have helped my opponent to understand just some of the many reasons why vaccinations are essential to a child's life.
immunizations for babies

Is this for real? Obviously vaccinations are a good thing; they save millions upon millions of lives every year - bottom line. That fact alone is enough for me to easily win this entire debate. But to elaborate (for your sake), I'd just like to remind you that you're SUPPOSED to get sick from immunizations... at least a little bit. The whole point of a vaccination is to stimulate the immune system to fight off a particular disease/ virus/ bacteria/ infection as if it were a real threat. Your body (somehow genetically, miraculously) remembers the organism and is therefore better able to fight it off more quickly and on a much larger scale should it actually become a real threat. While inside of the mother's womb, the unborn baby is protected by antibodies in the placenta to ward off any illness. If the baby is born and then breast fed, they reap the benfit of antibodies from the mother being passed through breast milk to offer further protection. However both of these things are temporary; it is important for a baby to be able to survive (i.e. overcome infection) without attachment to the mother... you can only breast feed a child for so long. And bottom line: although some vaccinations may cause minor problems, such as a small rash or mild fever, the risks of immunizations are tiny - not to mention extremely rare - in comparison to the risks of the diseases / viruses / bacteria / infections that the immunizations are supposed to protect you from.
Gentle oral sex should be legal for all children

"Children should not be sucking dick at age 1" Of course they should, And they should be sucked off too. It gives them pleasure, It is good, It benefits them. "they should be in school" I never said they shouldn't be in school. In fact, They can practice sucking there in a sex education class. What a good idea. "And they cannot consent to anything at all that is why we need to protect them and make choices for them" I think my choices are better than yours, Sucking genitals is fun and gives a lot of pleasure to children, Even if it is done with adults. Adults are more experienced and can suck on a child's genitals better than some other child could, And eventually, Gives more pleasure to a child. "Having them suck someones dick not only will result in permanent psychological and sexual damage" No, It won't. You are clearly brainwashed. It is the society's pressure that causes damage. There is no damage in gentle sucking or being gently sucked off. In fact, It will bring pleasure to a child. An adult could pour some chocolate on his pen. Is and make a child lick him. That way, Child will be more willing and will get a lot more pleasure.
Gentle oral sex should be legal for all children

Im not gonna lie to you I think you are likely a troll. But if you aren't, You have one of the most disgusting minds I have ever seen, Children should not be sucking dick at age 1 they should be in school. And they cannot consent to anything at all that is why we need to protect them and make choices for them like which school they get in rolled in and which math class they perform because it benefits them. Having them suck someones dick not only will result in permanent psychological and sexual damage but is also one of the most disgusting things I have ever heard argued in my entire life. You are disgusting
Gentle oral sex should be legal for all children

"even though the two year old cannot consent and does not understand what oral sex even is. " Children can't consent to be born either, But I don't see you protesting against child births. This clearly means that you do not care about child's consent, As you pretend to. Children don't understand math either, So is it wrong to teach them math when they don't understand it? No? But it's wrong to teach them something sexual because they don't understand it? Children don't understand life either, So is it wrong for them to live? Two year-old is perfectly able to consent to oral sex and perfectly able to understand what oral sex is. It's quite easy actually. Peni-s or pus-sy goes in mouth. It's one of the simplest things in life. If they can't consent to that, They can't consent to anything and everything is wrong. "That would clearly be a horribly immoral policy as it would allow for rape as most people younger than eight do not even know what sex is and they cannot legally (and should not be able to legally) consent. " Legalizing oral sex with children would allow rape? We can have oral sex legal, And rape illegal. In that case, Rape wouldn't be allowed. The system which you are supporting is immoral. It sends people to prison for decades and ruins their life just because they had oral sex with children. "If we are talking about children giving each other oral sex this is different as they are both the same level of maturity which means that no one is taking advantage of another. While if an adult does it they inherently have more power which leads to it being immoral, An adult can convince a child to do something even if the child does not wanna do it. " Two children who were raised under different conditions, With different genetics, Have the same level of maturity? No, They don't. One child could be more dominant, One child could convince the other to do something even if the other child doesn't want to do it. Also, You talk about power. Teachers also have more power than children, But they teach children, So is it immoral to send children to school? Parents have more power than children, So is parenting immoral? Parents convince children to do things they don't want to all the time: Eat your veggies, Go to school, Do your homework, Go study, Brush your teeth, Don't make as much noise, Pray to Jesus, Go to a dentist and so on. If you truly believe it's wrong to convince child to do something they don't want to, Then you believe all of these things I listed are wrong. "Paedophiles would definitely take advantage of this system to abuse their victims further" You want to send people to prison for having harmless oral sex with children, You are the one who wants to abuse people and the system. Sending people to jail for decades is far worse than what most pedophiles ever do during their lifetime. And I just love how you dare to call harmless oral sex an abuse! And what do you even mean by "further abuse"? More oral sex? That's not abuse. Maybe you mean rape? I don't see how making oral sex legal makes rape legal.