BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Who should be the rightful guardian of Julius Benedict Banana? Pro: Pikapoleon Con: SEABUNNY

It appears we have a classic case of misinformation. You see, Julius is not, in fact, languishing in my pocket, and has actually found a beautiful new home in my bookshelf. He is perfectly happy but sometimes is plagued by nightmares about his horrible experience in YOUR care. Also, what is "decievers" supposed to mean? I'd never entrust my baby to someone who can't spell such a simple word like "deserves". Also, SQUAREAGON, I did not "Leave Julius for dead," he DIED and he was raised by DARK MAGIC which scarred him for life! It took me DAYS of work to take him out of ETERNAL TORMENT! I DON'T WANT TO ENTRUST MY BABY TO SOMEONE WHO KEEPS HIM IN ETERNAL TORMENT!!!
Criminals should not be hated or despised

Pro has an extremely kind heart and chooses is a tough road. I believe that humankind has a war-like nature. "If a child is constantly verbally abused, the child can go into depression and develop suicidal thought. So words can hurt, sometimes more than sticks and stones. " That child then did not have a proper up-bringing. Children are blessing; they are the parent's gift for the future and should be cherished. Parents are charged with making children who can function well and are well-adjusted in society to better the future. If parents cause their children consistent pain, anger, fill-in with any abuse, the future usually perpetuates that cyclical behavior onto another generation. And of course, they have no business being parents. In that way I can understand you forgiveness stance. I would hope that the child would seek a way out. I can suggest my path. I went into the military which isn't for everyone but it helps people really look at what is important and what can be sloughed off like a caterpillar shedding his cocoon. Your argument is plea for a higher intelligence to endure those who act on a more primal plane. It is a lofty request and ideal. Few people can turn the other cheek. People can learn, grew and create better situations/futures for themselves. Society and the world is not a kind place. If one knows that, one can protect better; don't wear your heart on your sleeve for everyone to pluck out. Be guarded and toughen up because no looks out for you, like you do. "Also, when a man rejoins society, we should welcome him/her warmly; celebrating that he/she is now in the right state of mind instead of turning his dark past against him. " Welcoming people are easier said than done. Unless the crimes are written on his face, when a man rejoins society, it isn't so obvious. Perhaps when doing the job search and in this horrible economy that really hurts everyone, this comes into play. Not all persons will say, No, for employment. It's just finding that one in a hundred and not giving up. That said, adults who are repeat offenders, deserve to reap what they sown. I think closing all ports to crime would liken skill to that of an omniscient being and I am just human. "To err is human; to forgive, divine. " Alexander Pope (1688-1744) English poet
Criminals should not be hated or despised

Thanks for accepting! I have been looking forward to seeing the other point of view :) People definitely should try their best to obey the law and avoid committing crime. Lessening the shame of being a criminal, does not mean accepting crime. I want to give criminals my full support, even if they might take advantage of it. Instead of being average people (giving everyone what they deserve from our point of view), we should be good people (showing kindness to others even if they don't deserve it). When someone stumbles and falls, is it better to offer your hand or to reject the person? In my opinion, the first choice would be the best. Some argue that criminals could take advantage, so its better not to help. But that's like saying you won't help someone up because they might punch you in the face once they're standing. I have never been attacked, or have to defend someone from an attacker (and I hope I never have to). If this ever was to happen, however, my opinion might really change. After all, its hard to not despise someone who has wronged you (or someone else). The best time to make a decision is now, in my calm state. Not when I am influenced by anger. "Respect is earned; not freely given". It's right for a parent to take much care of their child, isn't it? Whatever has the child done to deserve this? I'm sure the child would have at least done something behind the parent's back. Does this mean that once the parents found out the child has been secretly eating the cookies, they should abandon him? I hope not. Please do not mistaken my opinion. I believe that disciplining and despising are two separate things. Of course a criminal should pay up for what he has done, but society should still reach out their hand and show support.
Criminals should not be hated or despised

Just for clarification - We are talking about crime, not out of necessity (food to eat); Bertolt Brecht's famous expression: Erst dass Essen, dann die Moral (First the essential eating, then morality). How can my intriguing opponent develop this strange idea that we be soft on criminals? One of the very definitions of criminal is someone who commits crime for a living. [1] So their livelihood is crime and Pro wants to treat them with kid gloves and turn the other cheek? People SHOULD obey the laws of the land thereby avoiding becoming criminals. By lessening the societal shame of being a criminal, crime becomes acceptable & eventually rampant. Do you advocate more violence? People should not become criminals in order for a society or civilization to function. Otherwise, you have lawlessness and might will equal right or indiscriminate use of force for personal gain. If we do go back to survival of the fittest, the criminals may just be in charge. Most people know right from wrong & if they don't, the courts are usually lenient on first-time offenders. After that first lesson, that is when society has deemed that you have learned your lesson, the second offense will have harsher repercussions. There does exist kindness towards being human and making mistakes it is called, first-time offenders. "But why give him what he deserves? " is Pro's fantastical goal is for societal hug and forgive the criminal; the only reason for acceptance by society is when the criminal changes, mastery of self & that is something that only they can do. If the criminal wants redemption, they need to find it in the spiritual realm and they can go to church for that feel-good sensation. Pro has the luxury to draw this bizarre thesis only because there are laws in the land, which protect Pro's tenderheartedness. Have you ever had to physically defend yourself or a loved one against a criminal or a would-be attacker? I believe your opinion might change if you were on their receiving end of their " human mistakes". Do you want your family living next door to a bomber, pedophile, thief? There is a reason that civilized persons do not like criminals, it is not civil. Most people and families don't like to live around criminal elements which are created by the despised criminal. Therefore criminals should be despised. Respect for the criminal? No, respect is earned not freely given. I give respect for people who can live a just life. 1 . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Criminals should not be hated or despised

People who have committed crimes at a large scale (bombings, shootings, senseless killing), or even on a smaller scale (thieving, robbing, child abuse), are sometimes hated and despised throughout society. The reason why is obvious, but I think that people tend to mistakenly morph the human who committed the crime and the crime itself into one. Humans beings should be viewed as simply human beings. We make mistakes, but with each others help, we can get back on track. This does not mean we can't despise the crime, just not the human who committed it. Personally, I believe that human hatred toward one another is a crime, but that would be a whole new debate. Some may argue that the criminal deserves to be hated. But why give him what he deserves? Why not reach out and show him/her kindness; the things we have been taught to do at home and at school? To build a better world for all, I believe that people should respect each other no matter what one has done in the past (or is going to do in the future). Note- I'm not saying we should get rid of prison. Just that we should only be using them to protect citizens from danger, not to punish the criminals.
Japan has the most successful society in history.

My bad, I'm new to this website and dropped my debate class in school before it started so I'm unfamiliar with the protocol involved in debates as opposed to arguements. I argue a lot. So that said... Yes that is my opinion. The facts supporting my opinion are that throughout the ages, there have been more powerful nations.. empires or whatever, but none has shown the survivability of Japan. I say this because of their social customs and generally accepted rules of society. In the world today for example, America seems to be the strongest "super power" in terms of raw power; however, that pales in comparison to the fact that Japan's economy isn't failing, it's population is actually decreasing, and the fact that the concept of Honor is still prevalent in every day life. Up until just before WWII, Japan held an isolationist policy (yes I'm pulling references from high school history class) and thrived. I predict that as the world falls apart and each country fails that Japan will re-adopt this policy and will outlast us all. This has nothing to do with their profit or global influence but rather their ability to hold onto social strengths that evolved long before there was an America or Great Brittain or any such group of people. It should therefore be obvious that they will continue to exist in peace long after other societies crumble. So to recap: * Japan holds Honor above all else. * Japan values Intelligence more than any other society. * In Japanese culture (as exemplifed in anime) wisdom is more valuable than power. Simply becaus one can win a fight does not make fighting the best option. Thank you for catching my error. I could go on with these but I'd like to give you a chance to respond to the facts that I've mentioned above. I'm here because I'd like to learn how to debate as opposed to argue my opponent into the ground.
Japan has the most successful society in history.

I state that Japan has the most successful society in history. It is my observation that throughout history, only one nation/people has had the most effective traditions, social conduct, and overall enlightenment. That would be Japan. Just for clarification, I was born in South Carolina and I am 100% American. I don't mean to post this as a statement of racism where I believe that all other groups of people are inferior. I just believe that the Japanese people will survive the longest in this world because they are stronger spiritually than any other group. I'd like to hear any arguement against this theory.
Business people, workers should be provided with dedicated fast lanes on city pavements (sidewalks)

Not everybody is in a hurry to get from A to B. Many people such as tourists; drama students; tramps; housewives; the mentally retarded; prostitutes; the morbidly obese; the unemployed; Hare Krishna nutjobs; the elderly; pickpockets; chronic alcoholics; parasitic aristocrats and British Telecom engineers on emergency call-outs have no sense of urgency and seem to have all the time in the world to dawdle around the crowded city streets, aimlessly meandering from one side of the pavement to the other, and generally getting in other people's way. Other folk, on the other hand, have to go out and work for a living and need to make swift progress through the streets in order to get to their workplaces or to meetings. Now, because the average speed of the traffic major cities at rush hour can be less than 1mph, often the quickest way to cover short distances is on foot – and it would be quicker still if those selfish, thoughtless people who don't have anything better to do than drift hither and thither kept out of the fvcking way. But they don't and what's why the pavements in London now have slow and fast lanes to segregate the tourists and shoppers, etc. from those people with better things to do with their time than loaf about the streets. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk... This is a superb idea – it should have been introduced years ago and I believe other cities with congested pavements such as Tokyo, New York and Hong Kong should adopt similar systems forthwith. Thank you.
TCU is better than A+M in being the best positioned to win the National Championship

The University of Texas A&M, voted happiest campus in the United States, does have a strong chance at winning the national championship before TCU. we will be picking up Oklahoma Senior Trevor Knight for the 2016-2017 season. he is a seasoned quarterback with a dead eye pass and legs that can run for miles. with the top freshmen Christian Kirk in the receiver position along with 6'7 seals-jones, knight will have many five star receivers to hit. with Myles Garret the lead sacker in the SEC good!
TCU is better than A+M in being the best positioned to win the National Championship

TCU is uniquely positioned to win the playoff next year. With the recent approval of the conferences to allow for a Big 12 Champion, there will actually be a champion and not a tie. SEC play is very tough...it's odds on a quaterbackless A+M team will be unable to win the division. TCU still has Kavonte Turpin and a strong defense that is incredibly experienced. In the end, the frog is better.
Debate votes are irrelevant.

If it is only a popularity contest then why argue in the first place is my first response. Then I realized that the argument already exists and what is popular isn"t always right or just. Since I am not all raped up in needing to win votes, I concede that votes are irrelevant and If I didn"t before I do now. Now I am off for some coffee since it is Saturday and so damn early!!!!!! Peace out man
Asians and whites are smarter than blacks and hispanics on average.

Most important fact that needs to be addressed is that my opponent will not bring forth his own unique arguments. He has plagerized other websites. Thus the arguments presented were not his own and this is misconduct. Sources themselves are not the argument. They simply provide evidence that support argument. If one were to search up what my opponent presented it could be seen as verbatim as shown in the following pictures. and so we see those exact arguments my opponent presented showed up word for word.Now to refute 'his' argument . My opening argument in round 1 states that whites and asians are generally smarter than blacks and hispanics. I did not mention it had to be due to genetics. In the first paragraph my opponent confirms there are differences between the groups. That supports my argument a group difference exists. Even if environmental or cultural factors caused the difference, my argument is still being supported. So therefore controversy over what causes the difference does not hurt my argument since my argument is based around there is a difference.Again same with the 2nd paragraph. My opponent agrees there is a difference between the groups so my argument is once again being supported. Now to present my argument. Whites and Asians have the higher income compared to blacks like me and hispanics. This source will prove it. and those groups having higher income will naturally have better education. As we see with this correlation. and so higher education puts them at a higher intelligence. This corelation shows it. the conclusion is that overall higher salary of certain groups causes them to be more intelligent than certain other groups. Also here is a concluding graph. So far my arugment has been based on higher income resulting in higher iq but genetics does play a role too. I wish to show whites and asians have both superior genetics and income so that whether it be genetics or income or both, whites and asians are proven to be more intelligent. Genetics obviously determines skull size since genetics is coding for protein structuring and the skull is built through much protein synthesis. and there is a correlation between cranial size and iq. and so genetics must also therefore play a role in iq. Conclusion is whites and asians have higher income and bigger skulls and thus higher iqs. It doesn't matter whther social class or genetics cause it. As long as there is a difference my argument is then correct.
Asians and whites are smarter than blacks and hispanics on average.

I'll take the challenge because I'm man enough. The history of the race and intelligence controversy concerns the historical development of a debate, concerning possible explanations of group differences encountered in the study of race and intelligence. Since the beginning of IQ testing around the time of World War I there have been observed differences between average scores of different population groups, but there has been no agreement about whether this is mainly due to environmental and cultural factors, or mainly due to some genetic factor, or even if the dichotomy between environmental and genetic factors is a correct approach to the debate. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, group differences in intelligence were assumed to be due to race and, apart from intelligence tests, research relied on measurements such as brain size or reaction times. By the mid-1930s most psychologists had adopted the view that environmental and cultural factors predominated. In the mid-1960s, physicist William Shockley sparked controversy by claiming there might be genetic reasons that black persons in America tended to score lower on IQ tests than whites. In 1969 the educational psychologist Arthur Jensen published a long article with the suggestion that compensatory education had failed to that date because of genetic group differences. A similar debate among academics followed the publication in 1994 of The Bell Curve by Richard Herr stein and Charles Murray. Their book prompted a renewal of debate on the issue and the publication of several interdisciplinary books on the issue. One contemporary response was a report from the American Psychological Association that found no conclusive explanation for the observed differences between average IQ scores of racial groups. A 2012 review article in the journal American Psychologist and a rejoinder to a reply to that article are some of the latest publications prompted by the debate.
Is The United States Evil

I am not sure weather you are a pro or con? If this is a question you should make a poll or post about it in the forums. If it actually is a debate then I'm not sure what you were doing with the first round but will gladly debate this with you. (Merriam Webster dictionary)Evil- morally bad : causing harm or injury to someone : marked by bad luck or bad events http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Genesis of The Bible is Not to Be Taken Literally

ConceptEagle, I think that I understand now and that you and I are on the "same page," if I might speak non-literally. Since we are able to move on in the debate, let's do so. Certain Christians can be quite literal in understanding the days of Genesis in the 24-hour fashion, as I argued previously. I subsequently argued that there were some other contextual (biblical context) reasons for believing in this straightforward meaning of the Hebrew word "yom" for "day." You cited the Roman Catholic Pope who had a different idea. This would be a great opportunity for you to expand on what you think that the Pope meant by interpreting Genesis in a non-literal fashion including some arguments which might have to do with "hermeneutics" or the science of biblical interpretation. Thanks!
Genesis of The Bible is Not to Be Taken Literally

Well, thank you to ConceptEagle, for initiating this topic of debate. It is a fascinating one, to be sure. Despite what my opponent said in later rounds, I did defend a literal reading of Genesis, Chapter1! However, he never responded to any of my arguments and instead proposed that we had a difference of definition. Even though I am more of a "literalist" than a "metaphorist" on this important first chapter, even I know how to defend a more metaphorical reading of the text and I am truly surprised that ConceptEagle did not put forth a bit more effort. Also, I opened wide the door for him (and tried to help him with his own argument) by suggesting that he explore some of the meaning behind the Pope's support of a metaphorical view of Genesis. Still, that did not interest my opponent. With that said, this appears to be a fairly straightforward debate!--TS
Religion is not the cause of war

To define the debate, this is all about debating if religion is the real reason for war or not. Non religious people would blame religion from the violence recorded in history like Crusaders and Islamic wars. As a Pro, I will give proofs that religion is not the cause of war. Con has to take the other side. Rules: Round 1 will be for acceptance. Round 2: Pro will take first, then Con. Round 3, Pro will rebut Con from Round 2 and will take another argument, Con will rebut Pro from Round 2 and will take another argument Round 4, rebuttals only from Round 3 (No added arguments) Round 5, conclusion. As long as possible, try to give details from history.
Religion is not the cause of war

To rebut Con, I have to give my point: Religion and Faith Religion and faith are different. From the given website from Con, religion means: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion [count noun] a particular system of faith and worship: the world"s great religions [count noun] a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion: consumerism is the new religion Religion has worship, has God, while faith, by definition: Faith a) complete trust or confidence in someone or something b) strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof http://oxforddictionaries.com... By given two definitions, faith is not limited for religion. The faith referred in Con's statement would mean trust: trust in soldiers since soldiers are not gods. Religion have God or any supernatural form. Second point: Statistics of religious and non religious wars As seen in the site I had presented, we can just be amazed that only few religious wars happened compare to non religious ones. For my entry point on Round 3: 1) "Religious wars" are not for religion at all: - Israeli Arab wars are not for religion, but more of nationalism and territory. 2) Wars are more associated on possession than religion Though religion may sometimes be a factor, it is still proven that territory is one main reason for war, and power as well. Religion is used for power, therefore, it is power that is one reason for war, religion as a forefront. 3) Non religious wars slaughtered more people: As seen from Round 2, the list of atheist and their number of people killed in their time. To conclude, we cannot blame religion for wars. Non religious wars are more on power. Religious personnel who battled for religion are actually seeking for power and territory, forefronting religion to hide their motives: One evidence is Spain: Using Catholicism to conquer Philippines. Sources: http://www.is-there-a-god.info... http://carm.org...