BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
you are salty

Yes colucci, the human body does have salt in it. but that will not be the topic of our debate. I will debate against the slang definition. A synonym for the slang version of salty is shank(not meaning stab, but the other version). I hope that will clarify things for the voters. I must admit, I do like the song "P***y Money Weed" by Wheezy(lil' Wayne), but that alone is not enough to say that I am salty(or shank). To say that I am salty does not mean anything unless you compare it to something. It is the same as many science experiments, you need a control to compare the experimental side of the experiment to. So I may be salty compared to Peyton Manning, but compared to Tom Brady, I'm sweet. The last thing I would like to say is to the voters: "don't let this hooligan win." Vote con!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Financial aid to impoverished nations' governments should be ceased.

"I would say that the purpose of aid to developing countries is to help them develop. Which, yes, would include helping them climb out of poverty" Not necessarily. Development is quantified by GDP, and GDP can certainly rise while 80% of the country remains in poverty. What I'm saying is that the true purpose of financial aid is not to help a country get out of poverty, but rather to stimulate their development by increasing their production of raw materials. In the end, financial aid does more to benefit the country loaning the money than the one receiving it. "The World Bank's loans do not exclusively go to companies like Haliburton. In any event, that is not a loan to a government, and is irrelevant." It's not irrelevant because the debt is still carried by the country receiving the companies services. While you may see it as redirecting your argument, I am merely showing how the financial aid further benefits the country loaning the money. "2) I'm not sure it really proves either of our points - it's bad whether it's a nation's government or a development firm that employs the policy. Both institutes do it - it's bad in both cases." It proves my point that financial aid increases the production of raw materials in the third world, which lowers the global price and makes it cheaper for the primary consumers(i.e. the developed nations). I'm sorry for ignoring your solutions. The first one seems kind of sexist, but I think loaning money to individuals would likely put a lot of people into a debt that they cannot repay. The second and third seem good for what you want to accomplish, but they don't address the issue that I am presenting: that developed nations would need to make sacrifices for the poor to move out of poverty. "I'm confused here - you seem to be defending an action that creates a situation of moral injustice." I am. You're basing your argument on morals, and I'm basing mine on the reality of people's greed. It's not possible for everybody in the world to enjoy the same high standard of living that we have, there simply aren't enough resources. It is a sad truth that our way of life depends upon cheap labor in foreign countries, so if you want to alleviate the poverty of people living on the other side of the world, you need to first accept a willingness to sacrifice the availability of cheap goods. My argument is that the majority of Americans aren't willing to make such a sacrifice.
Financial aid to impoverished nations' governments should be ceased.

I would say that the purpose of aid to developing countries is to help them develop. Which, yes, would include helping them climb out of poverty, but also includes solving problems that reside in social and governmental sectors as well. The World Bank's loans do not exclusively go to companies like Haliburton. In any event, that is not a loan to a government, and is irrelevant. But I shall respond to it anyway. 1) In that case, the loan to the company is just as bad as a loan to the government. There is no conceptual difference in the end result. Regardless of WHO uses the money, it still serves to promote elitism, retard social structures, and make it easier for economic powerhouses to promote their own agendas. I'm sorry, but with your point here, you simply redirect my argument, not refute it. Financial aid should be ceased to BOTH development firms and the governments of these countries. 2) I'm not sure it really proves either of our points - it's bad whether it's a nation's government or a development firm that employs the policy. Both institutes do it - it's bad in both cases. I was disappointed you didn't address my solutions - some think they're rather revolutionary or incorrect. Financial aid to the developing world from the G8 is actually not necessary for development. The Grameen bank was not founded by the G8 and is doing more for development in Southeast Asia than foreign financial aid has ever done. Financial aid to the governments of developing countries is, as you say, a way to fulfill our own greed. Does that mean it should continue? I'm confused here - you seem to be defending an action that creates a situation of moral injustice. Perhaps I am misunderstanding some of your points, but I would appreciate it if you would take a clearer stance. Much of what I'm getting is that you aren't refuting my arguments, but rather pointing out additional areas that deliver the same results that I put forth. Thanks for a great start - I await your reply...
Financial aid to impoverished nations' governments should be ceased.

You've picked an excellent debate topic, tarzan, and let me just start by saying that I think I agree with you, but there is a compelling argument against your position that you may not have considered and probably didn't expect. First of all, while you did not explicitly write it, you seem to be of the mindset that the purpose of financial aid to developing countries is to help their impoverished majorities to get out of poverty. Unfortunately for them, this is not the case. The purpose of financial aid is to increase their production of raw materials and resources necessary for the consumption of developed countries(i.e. America, and maybe some European countries). 1,3) The money doesn't necessarily go to the governments of these countries. Ironically, the bulk of the money may never leave it's country of origin as it is paid directly to a developing firm whose financial headquarters is located in America. The World Bank "loans" money to a company like Halliburton to do some kind of development in a country like Indonesia, such as building a power plant for them, building up their ports, giving them an aiport, or something else of this nature which will only benefit the wealthy and the producers of the nation. The reason I put the word loans in quotes is because the burden of the debt is of course not held by Halliburton, but by Indonesia. If, or rather when Indonesia defaults on their loan, they may than be forced to provide their resources in large quantity, lowering the world price so that developed nations can afford to buy more of it. 2) Exactly, this is really just another example to prove my point. Now, you may think that the scenario that I've described above is evil, as do I. It gets even more evil when you consider that the countries are expected to default on their loans so that their countries may be raped, legally under international law, of all their resources. However, it may be difficult for we, as Americans, to denounce such a practice because in order to allow developing nations to get out of poverty, we need to make sacrifices. Do you like being able to buy t-shirts for $5 and pants for $10? Do you realize that the people who make those clothes are lucky to make that much money in a day? Do you like being able to fill up your gas tank every week? Let's imagine how much oil would cost if the oil-producing nations actually dictated their supply levels, you can be sure it would be well over $100/barrel. Frankly, financial aid to developing nations is necessary, not to help their people out of poverty, but to satisfy OUR greed.
Resolved: The USA Should Abolish the Death Penalty

Thank you, once again for your arguments." kohai better not forfeit my debate with him."I am sorry but I have to forfeit(SORRY, I was too tempted!)RC1) As I proved, the DP also takes inoccent lives!RSPA) I wish to direct your attention to the source that my opponent used. According to his first source, 70% of theives are re-offenders. Therefore, based on his logic we should kill theives.Murders have the lowest re-offending rate of any criminal. Therefore, if murders should be killed because they can re-offend, anyone can and thus should be killed.Under that logic, I should be killed since I have speeded multiple times. Killing the speeders will surely save more lives!RSPB) My opponent claims that the DP is a deterance. I contend that it is NOT. According to a recent survey, 87 precent of criminologist said that it is not a deterrent and nothing will change by abolishing the DP [1]In fact, I wish to direct your attention to source number 2. This was a graph done between the years 1993-2009. According to this, states without the DP decreased in homicide, while states with the DP increased in homicide.Another simple fact is that when someone is comiting a crime, they do not think about the consequences.RC2) This is a circular logic that is a logical falacy of the slippery slope. Furthermore, I contend that if a prisoner has truly been reformed and can be released back in society and he can support himself, there is no reason to keep him in prison. However, if he has not, then we need to keep him behind bars.If punishment is the reason for prison, and not reform; then based upon con, we should give life without parol.Sources1. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...2. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
Normal School is better than Homeschool.

Please extend all my arguements, I hope my opponent posts his rebuttals and refutations next round. This was actually very fun. I just wanted to say that I agree with Dr. Haz3 (posted in the comment section). Unless you want to major in sports, or anything related to that, it should not be as important as what you are learning in school. You don't necessarily have to join the sports team for your school. There are many teams that are not related to any school at all. Education is what matters the most. And you have to understand that colleges accept more homeschooled kids because their overall test scores (ACT, SAT, and PSAT) are higher than public/private schooled kids.
Christianity Exists to Control

I must say, I am a bit disappointed. This debate was interesting and I hoped other members would have a chance to read it. Given my opponent's forfeit of his final round, however, this debate will not appear in the normal lists. For those that do read this debate, I remind you that my opponent did not offer any evidence to support his allegations. While imagination is useful in consider what might have been, only history can tell us what actually happened. The truth is that Christianity is not the clever fabrication of ruling authorities as a means of controlling its constituents. It is a religious movement, perpetuated by belief and defended in martyrdom. As such, you should vote CON. Thank you.
Christianity Exists to Control

I gladly welcome my opponent to Debate.org and wish him the best of luck in this and future debates. I hope he finds this community agreeable. My opponent offers an interesting theory, and I can only hope he intends to back his claim with compelling evidence. Since, however, my opponent has not yet offered evidence to support his allegations, I will defer my rebuttal and focus on my case against the resolution. In order to fulfill the resolution, my opponent will have to show that Christianity, at some point in history, was solely intended as a means of population control. It will not be enough to cite events in which rulers or churches used Christian influences to control the masses, for this shows how it was used by certain groups or individuals for selfish gain. To illustrate further, if I were to claim that guns exist to murder, it would be insufficient for me to point out that people have been known to use them as such. To prove my claim, I'd have to show that guns were made solely as murder weapons. To be refuted, one would merely have to show that guns were intended for another purpose, such as self defense or hunting, with murder being an unfortunate abuse. The best way to determine the intent of Christianity is to examine what we know of its founder, Jesus of Nazareth. His ministry is recorded in the four biblical gospel accounts, and he is mentioned in other Christian, Roman, Jewish, and Gnostic writings. Jesus reveals his own intentions in John 18:37 when he tells Pilate, "In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth." This statement, made on the eve of his crucifixion, is the most direct evidence that Jesus had no interest in social control. Indeed, he soon thereafter died a martyr's death. (http://www.religionfacts.com...) The fact that martyrdom marks so much of early Christianity also speaks directly against my opponent's allegations. Indeed, if Christianity was intended to control the masses through fear of hell, why would the rulers of that day make every attempt to suppress it? The apostles Paul and Peter were martyred by Nero (http://www.religionfacts.com...). Why would he do such a silly thing if he could use it to bring order into his empire? The reality is that Christianity posed a threat to his empire. In fact, Christians were persecuted throughout Rome for failing to submit to the deified state until Christianity was finally legalized by Emperor Constantine in 313 A.D. (http://www.religionfacts.com...). There is simply no case to be made that Christianity was fabricated for control. Only ardent belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ through the Apostles can explain how it continued to grow and flourish amidst so much persecution. You might not agree with Christianity's doctrines. You might consider them outmoded or untrue. But to insist that Christianity was built upon anything other than sincere religious belief is quite simply poor scholarship. The resolution, therefore, stands negated. I eagerly await my opponent's evidence to support his claims.
Christianity Exists to Control

Anyone who accepts, I am grateful, as this is my first debate here, and I am looking forward to it. My argument is that Christianity exists now only because people have passed it down generation to generation. Christianity's real goal was to subdue and threaten people into obeying secular laws, through fear of Hell. The Bible states that any ruler in place must inherently possess the mandate of heaven, otherwise, the ruler would not be in their position of power. By disobeying this ruler in any way, one goes against God and must be punished by the torments of Hell. This is the basis of my argument, that people only continue to believe in Christianity because the original story HAD to be good enough to make the populace believe it, and therefore belief became a family tradition.
Flag desecration should be legal

Thank you for responding! "This amendment is the whole problem, it does let us say what we want to say without the government preventing us, but the problem here is that people take advantage of this amendment and do whatever they want to because the government can't stop us from talking." I'm sorry that you feel that the first amendment is not good, but it isn't going to change. If you wish to debate the first amendment, you can do that, but for now, we aren't changing the constitution. "I think I know something that will counter making it legal and that is flag code (Etiquette)." I really wish they wouldn't make laws regarding etiquette. I feel like laws should be to protect people. But if wouldn't accept that the first amendment was wrong, it would be unfair for me to say that we should repeal the flag code. I must say, though, that if it contradicts the constitution, the constitution wins. In other words, if I say that flag desecration is protected by the first amendment, and you say it is illegal through the flag code, the first amendment takes precedence. "WHY are they doing this, of course this is out of disrespect but what do they have against the USA? There are many people who hate the USA but I believe they should try to fix what they believe is wrong with the USA." I agree, and I feel that it doesn't fix much to burn a flag, but if that's their way, why should it be in the law's place to stop them? That is the most important question, which you need to answer if you want to be successful in this debate. I feel like it borders on oppression to make laws based upon behavior which does not affect anyone else. It especially borders on oppression if those behavioral laws regard respect to the government. Let me revise that previous sentence. It IS oppression if those behavioral laws regard respect to the government. I am looking forward to your response!
Flag desecration should be legal

What I will be trying to do here is prove that Flag desecration shouldn't be legal. The problem here has to do with the first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. This amendment is the whole problem, it does let us say what we want to say without the government preventing us, but the problem here is that people take advantage of this amendment and do whatever they want to because the government can't stop us from talking. I think I know something that will counter making it legal and that is flag code (Etiquette). The Flag Etiquette section 8: " No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America". This section states that No disrespect can be shown to the flag, Flag desecration is a form of disrespect and goes against this code which would make it illegal. Now even if this doesn't work (Flag Etiquette stopping Flag desecration) we must consider something else, WHY are they doing this, of course this is out of disrespect but what do they have against the USA? There are many people who hate the USA but I believe they should try to fix what they believe is wrong with the USA. They could do what Martin Luther King Jr. did and do peaceful protest/marches, they could do like what you said and send a petition to the government and write to their elected officials. I would like to bring up the Civil right movement by Martin Luther King Jr, what he did was he tried to change the government or influence the government to give more rights to African Americans. Now let me ask you this would he have changed anything if he just want around burning flags? No, he would not. This is my Argument here that Flag Etiquette would stop Flag Desecration because it goes against it(the code) and that if they don't like the USA they should try and change it instead of acting in a childish manner. Best of luck against my Opponent, I will enjoy reading what he has to say against my argument. This link right here talks about Flag Etiquette . http://www.ushistory.org... This is another link for Flag Etiquette, it might have more on it and it might be in a format that will be easier to read. . http://www.usflag.org... The first link will bring you to Section 8 that I mention earlier in the debate. This is the Bill of rights . http://www.law.cornell.edu... Before I end this, please take your time (Pro) to read over what I wrote, carefully.
Flag desecration should be legal

I have recently debated the topic "Flag desecration should always be legal." Although that is exactly what I believe and it was an extremely fun debate, it relied mostly upon semantics, and it didn't really work with the issue at hand, which is flag desecration. My first argument will revolve around the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the first amendment, it basically gives us such basic human rights as speech, press, assembly, petition, and religion. Now, in 1787, the founding fathers did not anticipate that 222 years later, people would not understand their terminology well. I guess they thought it was common knowledge that the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression were synonymous. Shame on you, Thomas! Anyway, they are the same, therefore people who speak in sign language are able to insult the government. It also means that flipping off or mooning someone are not punishable offenses. It also means that you can burn a flag freely without being arrested. Now, don't think for a second that I think that flag desecration is a good thing to do. I think it's horribly rude and I would never do it. I would also never cheat on my wife or sass my mother, but they should still be legal. Honestly, I think people should be encouraged to write their elected officials and petition the government. The democratic system is not complete without the people. However, if your way to express your frustration is to burn Old Glory, it borders on oppressive for the government to stop you. I am excited for your response and the beginning of a great debate!
Theory of evolution is valid

I'm bored so starting a debate on this topic. Basically, if you are of the opinion that "macroevolution" is not feasible, then this is the debate for you. Evolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies over successive generations, and the subsequent diversification of life due to various factors. If you want to make a case for a different definition for evolution, go for it, but know that if you use "kinds" to classify populations of organisms in your definition of evolution, I will have no choice but to completely eviscerate your definition from the top down, thus showcasing it for being utterly void of any scientific applicability and therefore rendering it useless. So I would strongly advise against my opponent doing that. Trust me; it's not a road you want to tackle. Rules: Maximum of 3 arguments are to presented, and then we'll go from there. These arguments would be against the theory of evolution of course. If anyone accepts this debate, gl and hf.
Theory of evolution is valid

I was hoping your reply would have some kind of substance and bump it up a notch, but, I can see you have nothing. You briefly mention code again, ignoring my last response. Futher refusing to accept that a code is something which can be written, understood by others, and reproduced, of which DNA has all these properties. You refuse the scientific data concerning the droughts on Daphne Major effecting the life of that eco system, despite it being right in front of you.. You repost Darwins quote, yet again, which has been posted several times, running it into the ground screaming all the while. You provide no more detailed evidence of the evolution of the eye other than the amateur sputtle I already called out for its lack of complexity, and not even attempting to explain the cone cells I mentioned, which truly, are only one of many inconsistencies with the evolution of the eye and reducible complexity. You state that finding evidence of the evolution of the eye is an impossible standard, yet cling to the idea that it evolved, directly after stating that "I" need to give evidence that photoreceptors evolution is a presumption, despite your admission of it being an impossible standard, (evidence of your lack of comprehension.) You still cannot give a compete record of the evolution of even one species out of 8.7 million to choose from, yet feel a need to to put your full faith in evolution despite 8.7 million failures. This isn't a debate of politeness, you clarified that in your initial post in which you threaten to eviscerate your opponent, yet when you begin to feel yourself losing traction you try to play the blame game and frame me as the rude one. A weak mind certainly. When you ask for a battle dont act like a lily when someone brings it. You seek sympathy when what you really need is conclusive arguments. Try again. My stances are still defined, and your evidence is still lacking.