BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Social Darwinism

My opponent begins by trying to make excuses as to why he copied almost his entire debate from another website. In R3 he copied an entire paragraph of his argument straight from a website and nowhere in his argument did he cite a single source. And even in R2 where he had the courtesy to cite where he copied and pasted from, that does not excuse the fact that his entire argument, save one paragraph, was completely pasted from another website. I looked at his other debates and he has done the exact same thing. But now on to his responses. This is just a trick because he can not disprove me. As you can see, the opponent is unable to disprove a single thing of what I wrote or pasted here. Not a single thing!My opponent is actually correct here. I have not, nor have I tried to disprove a lot of what my opponent wrote. That is because he wrote absolutely nothing in defense of 'evil' actually existing even subjectively. Because he never did this, I am able to accept that social Darwinism entails genocide, sexism, and racism without it being in any way evil or even immoral. So what if I copied everything? Does that mean I'm wrong then?The point is not are you right. You have not even shown that. The point is that you did not even try to make the argument yours. You did not even have the courtesy to re-write it in your own words. If you vote against me, then you simply agree with the social-Darwinism. Trying to scare people into voting for you I see. No voters, a vote for me is not a vote for social Darwinism, but the recognition that my opponent did not uphold his BOP in this debate and copied the entirety of his argument. As you can see, my opponent is agreeing with me that social-darwinism is racist, is the reason behind world war II and that social-darwinism is sexist, but he does still not admit that social-darwinism is evil. Yes. That is what I am arguing. My opponent simply assumes that these things are evil, without bringing any justification A other thing have to be maked clear here, is when i mean evil, i do not mean evil, like satanic evil or something. Evil can mean many things. Something like killing innocent people are evil.It really is nice that my opponent waited until the last round to define 'evil'. But again he brings no reason as to why killing an innocent person is evil.Really my only regret in this debate is that my opponent did not seem to understand his burden of proof in this debate. He began by making presuppositions of moral facts and plagurizing his arguments. Voters, you know what to do. Vote Pro. And please vote based on our arguments, not based on the shock value of the resolution.
Social Darwinism

I believe that social-Darwinism is the reason off all evil, and I will prove it!Very bold I must say. But my opponent makes a mistake here. He presupposes. He presupposes that the quality of evil exists. If he is to argue that social Darwinism is evil then we must decide what standard it is to be compared to. Intuition? Suibjective emotions? Moral facts? We must agree on a meta-ethical viewpoint on which to argue and if necessary, a normative ethical viewpoint. My opponent in the last round simply described the ideological and historical implications of social Darwinism. He did not show how or why they were wrong. It is for this reason that I will not challenge my opponent's concept of social Darwinism, but will ask him what specifically is evil about it? What is 'evil' about racism, killing the handicapped, imperialism, or the Nazis?I know this might seem like a stupic question to ask, but when we are debating we must be ready to argue different viewpoints. I am ready to argue against the idea of these things being immoral, evil, or even wrong (though I may not agree with them). But before I defend these things I would like for my opponent to say what meta or normative ethical viewpoint he is arguing from, and because we did not agree on one in the beginning of this debate, I will ask for him to rationally justify it.I realize that my opponent is new to the site and so unknowingly commited the common-sense fallacy, where one argues from common sense or in this case from a common moral sense. I of course apologize to my opponent that we have to waste a round on this little clarification. If we do not have enough room to fully debate in 4 rounds, he can always challenge me to a part 2 after the conclusion of this debate. Again, I apologize but we must get this out of the way.
Social Darwinism

Before we get this debate underway I will try to clear up any confusion that may arise. My opponent will be arguing against the concept of Social Darwinism, more specifically he will argue that it is ""the reason off[sic] all evil"". I will argue either that Social Darwinism is not evil or that it is a rational concept.Social Darwinism: a 19th-century theory, inspired by Darwinism, by which the socialorder is accounted as the product of natural selection of those persons best suited to existing living conditions and in accord with which a position of laissez-faire is advocated.[1]I will let my opponent begin as he is instigator of this debate.[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Individuals with severe mental illness (SMI) should be forced into treatment

Severe mental illness (SMI) is defined as severe bipolar or schizophrenia. 1. Individuals with SMI have impaired awareness of their illness. Most do not realize that they are sick, and therefore don't seek treatment. 2. Not treating individuals with SMI leads to homelessness. Is it fair to leave those who are not aware of their own illness living in the streets and eating out of garbage cans? 3. 10% of all homicides in the United States are committed by individuals with SMI. 99% of those homicides could have been prevented if such individuals were being treated. 4. Some people claim that forced treatment violates the freedoms of persons with SMI. However, one must ask, is a person with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder who is living on the streets truly free in any meaningful sense? 5. It's the condition, not forced treatment, that takes away the liberties of individuals with SMI. Individuals with SMI have proven themselves time and time again they cannot properly exercise their liberties. 6. In one study of patients who had been involuntarily medicated, 71% later agreed with the following statement: "If I become ill again and require medication, I believe it should be given to me even if I don't want it at the time." In another study, 60% of patients who had been forcibly medicated agreed retrospectively that it was a good idea. 7. The final word on this belongs to Herschel Hardin, who for 9 years was a director of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association: "The opposition to involuntary committal and treatment betrays a profound understanding of the principle of civil liberties. Medication can free victims from their illness-free them from the Bastille of their psychoses-and restore their dignity, their free will, and the meaningful exercise of their liberties."
Another literal joke debate.

There were two friends walking in a forest: a Czech and a Dutchman. They were walking in the forest, when a bear appeared out of nowhere and ate the Czech. The Dutchman was just baffled as to what had just taken place, so he went to the park ranger's office and told him that a bear had just eaten his friend. The ranger took his rifle with him, and the Dutchman led the ranger to the location where the Czech was eaten. When they got to the location, there were two bears there: a male and a female. The ranger asked the Dutchman which bear ate the Czech, and the Dutchman responded by saying that it was the male who ate the Czech. The ranger shot the male bear, killed him, and opened him up. Much to their dismay, the Czech was not there.
Another literal joke debate.

Same rules as before. 1st rd joke, 2nd rd punchline. Lez do dis Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson went on a camping trip. After a good meal and a bottle of wine, they lay down for the night, and went to sleep. Some hours later, Holmes awoke and nudged his faithful friend. "Watson, look up at the sky and tell me what you see." Watson replied, "I see millions and millions of stars." "What does that tell you?" Holmes asked. Watson pondered for a minute. "Astronomically, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, I observe that Saturn is in Leo. Horologically, I deduce that the time is approximately a quarter past three. Theologically, I can see that God is all-powerful and that we are small and insignificant. Meteorologically, I suspect that we will have a beautiful day tomorrow. What does it tell you?"
Evidence for God

First off, the burden of proof lies on theists who make the claim that there is a God, not the atheists or anti-theists who claim there isn't. If you need an explanation for this, I'll be happy to provide. I believe that there is no accurate evidence that proves God, and that the majority of theistic arguments are essentially trying to pry open holes in current theories where science hasn't made any discoveries in yet. Other claims of evidence include ad hominem arguments, and ad populum arguments, or confusing/illogical theoretical situations.
Anxiety improves performance

Anxiety assists in preparation, Function and relaxation which improves overall performance in any activity or task. In regards to preparation, Test anxiety can help students confront their anxiety to avoid failure, According to the University at Buffalo Counseling Services. They can overcome their fear of failure by focusing on an exam and the actions needed to pass the test. They might study harder because of the anxiety and feel more confident because of the information they gather. When the test is taken, They can use positive self-statements to convince themselves that the test is not as difficult as they thought it would be, And feel pleased with what they have learned. In terms of function, Physical reactions that stem from anxiety also can help people. The fight-or-flight response created from anxiety makes people either confront a situation or flee to safety. Sweating, Heavy breathing and rapid heartbeat can occur during an anxious situation, But the body also produces a surge of adrenaline to make people stronger, The Anxiety Support Network notes. It allows people to accomplish things they did not think possible, Such as running faster or moving heavy objects to help themselves or others. Anxiety also assists in relaxation which will help people to be fully relaxed before a big task which can help with overall performance. Stress and anxiety increases the levels of the brain chemicals known as endorphins, Serotonin and dopamine, Which help relax people during uncomfortable times. Competition, Whether among athletes or coworkers, Can produce anxiety, But the anxiety only helps them make plans or aim for goals to achieve successful results. The competition often becomes fun. Overall, Anxiety can be used effectively as a positive thing in terms of being used to enhance and improve performance for any task or activity.
Anxiety improves performance

Anxiety does not improve motivation. In fact it has been found to significantly decrease a person's motivation to do something. When people are faced with anxiety, They lose all motivation to participate as they become so terrified of failing. People with anxiety live a life (in their own words) of "missed opportunity" as they are not willing to participate in the opportunities they are presented with. Not only has anxiety decrease motivation, But it has also been found that, Because of this lack of motivation, People are unable to complete the task to the best of their abilities.
Anxiety improves performance

According to the American Psychological Association, Anxiety is "an emotion characterized by feelings of tension, Worried thoughts, And physical changes"like increased blood pressure. " The symptoms vary from person to person and depend on the magnitude of the perceived threat. Anxiety is a normal, Healthy emotion. It"s meant to alert you to danger. When you encounter a dangerous situation, Your fight or flight response is activated. That surge of energy encourages you take action that will keep you alive. But most people experience anxiety in situations that aren't actually life threatening. Going to a job interview, Speaking up for yourself, Or giving a speech probably won"t kill you. But when you"re in those situations, Your body may react as though you"re dangling from the edge of a cliff with one arm. Historically, Anxiety has often been viewed as the enemy. Athletes and performers are told to get rid of their stage fright or to rid themselves of their jitters. And for good reason"some studies have found that anxiety impairs memory and reduces concentration. However, New research suggests that anxiety doesn't always have to impair performance. In fact, It actually enhances it. A 2017 study published in the Journal of Individual Differences examined individual"s appraisals of situations. Those who viewed stressful events as challenges, Rather than threats, Gained energy from their anxiety. The boost in energy motivated them and improved their performance. The researchers discovered individuals performed best when they acknowledged their anxiety, As opposed to suppressing it. People who labeled their emotions and accepted their anxiety were better able to devote their energy to their goals.
Should marijuana be legal or illegal

Pro has forfeited this round. I extend all my points and rebuttals. I would like to add a few points: 5. It goes against the principle of promoting and preserving public health With all the physical and mental harms the consumption of marijuana brings, legalising it would only mean a blatant allowing harmful substances to be consumed by the public and thus a blatant allowing and accommodation of a less healthy population. This goes against the role of government. According to the Constitution's preamble, the Government's Role includes "To promote the general Welfare". "Welfare" is defined as "the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group." Thus it is obvious that preserving and promoting public health is a duty of the government, and legalising marijuana goes against it. 6. Marijuana affects other people besides the smoker The consumption of marijuana not only harms the smoker himself/herself but also the people around. Drug use in general causes negative effects to persons besides the user, such as the rise of health care costs, violence associated with the use of drugs, neglect of children by drug-addicted parents, and other third party effects. Legalising marijuana and thus allowing people to consume it in public will pollute the minds of the younger generation, giving them the message that taking drugs is acceptable. There are reasons certain things are illegal and/or cannot be done in public. Pornography is an example. Pornography cannot be displayed in public places due to the negative messages they send to those not of age. Why, then, should marijuana be an exception? I look forward to seeing Pro's arguments and rebuttals. References: http://education-portal.com... http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Walking Dead Carol Ruins Validity of Show

I am assuming that people who are tuning in this debate are aware of the plot of the show so I won't be doing a summary of any characters or events that happens. Quite simply put I believe that Carol falls under the type of character that is used for pandering to a certain demographic. She is essentially your strong, over come all the odds, female. The problem with these types of characters is that they are completely made for fan service, and are not practical. Now I know what some people may be thinking. Hey its just a show, anything is possible. This is true. But as the title of this debate says, her character ruins the validity of the show. How am I suppose to suspend my disbelief that a woman coming from a domestic abuse background, and no military or combat training, can hang with bigger, stronger, and faster foes? The creators are free to do what they want, but again, the validity of the lore and universe that they have created becomes conflicting with the audience. If you want to label me as a bigot or chauvinist then that is your prerogative. But I just can't continue to believe what I am seeing in front of me as entertaining when a woman like her can fight toe to toe with Morgan, a man who has martial arts training and out weighs her. Even from a fictional stance it just not valid as believable. I have much more to say but I will let the Con go.
Walking Dead Carol Ruins Validity of Show

My stance on this debate is that Carol is a pivotal character on The Walking Dead that has made advancements as a character but also advancements to the plot, and resulted in an overall increased quality of the show in general. I will also be making refutations as to why Carol is no longer a burden to the group of survivors that this TV show centers on. I would also like to re-iterate that this debate is circa mid-season 6, so I would strongly advise that anyone who is not caught up with the show should not read any further. During the debate rounds, I may do an analysis of the decisions this character makes in detail, and also analyze events that have changed this character. I will not hesitate to talk about the events leading up to season 6, this may spoil it for anyone who is not caught up. I will not be labelling the spoilers in the rest of my arguments, therefore, you should consider this the final spoiler alert. I am looking forward to a decent round of debating with the Pro side! Good luck to you, and I hope we both enjoy this.
Walking Dead Carol Ruins Validity of Show

Well seeing how my opponent has not made any counter points I will close with this. I am all for a good story, characters of different types being strong, and an interesting plot. Looking at Walking Dead Carol I feel that she could be a great character, but her heroism was not earned it was given. Her attitudes and personality have gone up and down sporadically and without real purpose, instead of slow and natural. It is good she overcame her abusive husband, but her coping with losing her daughter could have been shown more, at least for a full season. Once her daughter died she went immediately into a dark and cold I don't care about life anymore attitude, instead of mourning. Lets face it, that is just not a practical response. I don't think any mother can just erase away her daughter being a zombie and then being shot in the face with the people whom she travels with. And for people saying it is just a show, then let me reiterate. For us to extend our suspension of disbelief then certain things have to make sense to us real world people. And since the science of the shows universe are similar to ours, then we must take into account emotional situations in which how a person would actually act. Hope you all enjoyed this "debate" and please vote for me
Walking Dead Carol Ruins Validity of Show

Going off of your counter points. You say a good example the shows Carol strong is the relationship with Sam. Are you kdding me,this is one of the main points against her authenticity. So she threatens a little boy's life but also offers to make cookies. Yeah I could see that possible in real life if she was an ex-military operative, but she is not. There aren't too many women who go through domestic violence, lose there daughter, lose two other children, and then able to have a straight face and tell a kid she is going to kill them. I don't care how "bad @ss" she is portrayed, that just doesn't happen. Naturally a female is going to have a nurturing temperament, and that is proven through science not just my opinion. Anybody can go research this but for the "points" of the debate I'll post a link. http://thesinglewomanguide.com... Now one may ask why is this relevant? Well it is relevant because the show is trying to mix all of these different qualities into a highly violate and emotional character that in the real world it just doesn't work. Like I said before you can't just combine beaten wife, turmoil of losing daughters, blowing up gas tanks, and fight hand to stick against a martial artist, and expect it to be viable, it just doesn't work. Yes of course it just fiction, but this show is based off of the physics and world that we live in so standard science and philosophy still applies. Now you say Carol has had training, yea against slowing moving targets from a distance. The fight against Morgan was against a opponent who was physically superior and had the advantage in length with his stick. I don't think I need to really explain that just look at this botch fight. Starts at 1:45
Can this work be considered erotic poetry

con says "You are PRO. You must prove that the poem is erotic poetry as the resolution suggests" there is no need for me to prove the pro position as you said "Eh. It's not that erotic" the words " It's not that..." means it is erotic but not very much erotic so you agreed with my position that the poem is erotic thus there was noting for me to prove thus i must win the debate
Can this work be considered erotic poetry

pro says "Er, you mean, tell us why it's NOT erotic. Let's look at the first page (approximately) for reference. " hey pro dont you know that you took the pro position ie question is "Can this work be considered erotic poetry" and your pro position is yes it can be considered erotic poetry but you state "it's NOT erotic" so you agree with my position con it cant be considered erotic poetry so as pro agrees with my con position ie it is not erotic then i must win the debate thank you pro for agreeing with me con
Can this work be considered erotic poetry

Er, you mean, tell us why it's NOT erotic. Let's look at the first page (approximately) for reference. " Oh these Orphic words of I tothe uniniated having no importthese words of I not obvious nomeaning to the mind of thee to thy intelligence unravelable words thewords of I to the senses notapparent oh my poesy beyond theordinary understanding of thee whatbe there meaning what be theresense what can say I to rend theethy hair in perplexity what sayethI in mystery rend thee then theewill see rend I my face furrowedstreaked by tears moltenlead-like that fromst theeyes of I weep fromst thecups of the eyes of Itears of blood fulguranttears refuscent that flashdazzling light I kohl’in al-deen sigh my doleful sighsthat curling up sky wardlike wandering smoke upona perfumed scented breezeI kohl’in al-deen sigh my dolesome sighs that cloakthe clouds puffy whitelike snow in veils ofdolorous heart wrenchingcries"This is not erotic at all. He is crying in fear and sadness, with blood all around, and smoke everywhere. I see nothing sexual referred to here, nor anything to "turn me on" in the least.Prove me wrong my opponent.
Just try to support Christianity scientifically.

Debate accepted. Firstly, Con fails to define *exactly* what they're arguing by exclusively using the term "scientifically". Evidence of Christianity can actually be found in archeological findings [1.] This may not be the kind of "science" Con has in mind but as no definitions or additional explanations have been provided in round one, they still count as valid scientific evidence of Christianity and as proof that it exists. [2.] Such discoveries also mean that science can indeed be applied to Christianity. [3.] Noting once again that Con.did *not* define what form of science would specifically be included in the debate. Therefore as according to the resolution, archeological evidence is technically "supporting Christianity". Alluding to more literal evidence, however, there is certainly a strong case to be made for evidence of a design for the universe--which strongly corresponds with Christianity and the concept of God being an actual creator [4.] [1.] http://www.nbcnews.com... [2.] http://m.livescience.com... [3.] http://www.sciencedaily.com... [4.] http://www.everystudent.com...