BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Earth: Flat (pro) vs. Spherical (con)

Since the last debate was a bust, this is a copy paste job. To prevent any more noobs accepting, and forfeiting, by that i mean people that haven't even researched their own model enough to give a valid reason they think they live on a spinning ball, let alone any other models or theories enough to argue against them, I'll screen this one. If you'd like to accept please state so in the comments section. Pro will argue for a flat earth, con will argue the spherical side. To avoid semantics involved with the topic, and go over some differences in types of evidence we'll likely discuss, I'll offer some definitions. earth: noun 1.the plane(t) on which we live; the world Flat: For this word we use the general, overall version, specifically for this debate, not a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. We all know there are mountains and hills that are far from flat. Spheroid: Ball or spherically shaped, specifically for this debate, a ball this is 25,000 miles in circumference. Empirical Data: Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method. Formal sciences are disciplines concerned with formal systems, such as logic, mathematics, statistics, theoretical computer science, information theory, game theory, systems theory, decision theory, and theoretical linguistics. These require no empirical data, and come secondary to such. I would also like to point out the differences in subjective evidence and objective data: https://www.quora.com... RULES 1. Burden of proof is shared, my opponent must provide conclusive, empirical, and subjective evidence for the two differences in our model, curvature, and axial rotation, and I must do the same for the opposing side of the dichotomy. 2. No semantics. 3. No ad hominem, my opponent seems to love insults, seeing as how I have a high tolerance for insults, Ad hominem is against the rules, meaning you can not use insult in or before an argument, or to replace an argument, once a rebuttal has been successful, some mud slinging should be in order and is allowed, if he chooses this, he should expect the same in return, all in good taste of course. 4. No forfeits otherwise, this will result in automatic loss and concession. round structure: round one should be either an acceptance only round, or con may state his opening arguments in this round, if he chooses the latter, he should forfeit the last round. round two should be used for opening arguments or, if my opponent opens first, my opening arguments, and his rebuttals to those arguments, and, if he chooses, more arguments, but no new arguments in round 3 if he opens first. the final round will be final rebuts and conclusions, unless he opens first, which he will forfeit by typing forfeit in that round.
Gay right, yes or no

Slow down. You just said labels are wrong YET you just labeled a group that is the LGBT community. So now you are doing something "wrong" according to your logic. "We cant really define anything. Putting a label on anyone is just plane wrong." - Whats wrong about it? You still haven't established whats wrong. You are just stating your opinion without explaining. In my opinion, nothing is wrong with labels. Labels help us determine what that specific thing is. My label would be my name. You have a label, cory0000. Everybody has a label and saying that, that is wrong is simply odd. Labels are just something we use to determine what something is so we can identify it. Saying labels are wrong is simply ridiculous because you are ignoring that everything has an identity. Now onto the rest of your "argument" which isn't an argument. You just gave me a bunch of quotes from the U.S.A Judicial System, Amendment, etc. You never said that we are talking about gay rights in america. You said gay rights. Period. The problem you are having is you aren't explaining anything rather saying things leaving the rest of us confused to figure out where you are and what you are talking about. There are a lot of opinions on gay rights around the world, America is not the only one. A lot of other countries say that gay rights are not a human right. There are 79 countries in the world that say being gay is illegal and they think is wrong. If you didn't know. Pagan cultures would slaughter babies and give them as a sacrifice to their 'god'. Sounds terrible right? Well that was their morals, they thought they were doing good. So you haven't given me anything to work with on your morals, but simply a useless opinion with no reasoning behind it. This is what I have been trying to say, and what I have to keep saying but you won't give me an answer. DEFINE YOUR TERMS AND DEFINE YOUR MORALS. You have stated "its wrong" "its there right". Who gives right? Define rights? What is wrong? What in your opinion is wrong defined as? Please give us something to work with besides you blurting out words with no definition.
Gay right, yes or no

I see your point. We cant really define anything. Putting a label on anyone is just plane wrong. But what i really have to say is this; having an open eye on somethings as touchy as this, you have to put a pin on it. If you look at the history of LGBT's they have been discriminated against for YEARS. If you go up to a black person and call them a racial to them they are going to get mad. The only way that you are gay is by sleeping with another man/women. That is the only way that you can be gay. No. You don't have to sleep with someone to have that label. It comes from the people that are around you. "Throughout our history, we have fought discrimination. We have joined together to recognize equality for racial minorities, women, people with disabilities, immigrants... [Legalizing gay marriage] is the right thing to do and it is time." US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner, in overturning same-sex marriage bans in Wisconsin and Indiana in Sep. 2014, wrote that the bans "discriminate against a minority defined by an immutable characteristic." [40] As well as discrimination based on sexual orientation, gay marriage bans discriminate based on one's sex. As explained by David S. Cohen, JD, Associate Professor at the Drexel University School of Law, "Imagine three people"Nancy, Bill, and Tom... Nancy, a woman, can marry Tom, but Bill, a man, cannot... Nancy can do something (marry Tom) that Bill cannot, simply because Nancy is a woman and Bill is a man." The US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in the 1974 case Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur that the "freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause." US District Judge Vaughn Walker wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 that Prop. 8 in California banning gay marriage was "unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses." The Due Process Clause in both the Fifth and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution states that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment states that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Gay right, yes or no

You obviously didn't catch what I mean't by define. Its so we can be on the right track and so we are both talking about the same thing. Labels are on everything, if you are offended by labels then you are being unreasonable. Everything has a label, no escaping it. You need to know what things are. Saying someone is gay, is a label. So you making the point that labels are a problem is rather pathetic. You need to define your terms, lay out some rules when making a debate. Back to your reasoning. "Being gay is who you are." - Does that make it right? Where are you getting your morals from? How do you have the right to say what is right or wrong. Where are you basing that being gay is who you are? I think otherwise I think being gay is a choice and is simply a sin. What if someone said "being a rapist is who I am." Does that make it right? I have a source for my morals, the bible. I believe that there is a God who has demonstrated morals to us as humans. I respect your views just I would like to know your morals because right now you are stating things like they are fact with no evidences, no sources, no definitions, nothing. As a Christian I struggle with sin, so don't be saying I am a hypocrite, let me do some explaining. I am not a "homophobic" I just wish for homosexuals (a man who loves another man) to come to the realization that what they are doing is wrong in God's eyes. I struggle with sin and I would like to help my fellow humans overcome theirs as I try to overcome mine. Also for the sake of this debate. You haven't defined feeling. Do you mean they are born gay? Or they just want to be gay, that is their choice? Please I need to work something in order for a smooth and mature debate.
Gay right, yes or no

Your argument is that being gay is a right. You really haven't defined anything. Where are you talking about gay marriage? Where do you get your morals? Define gay marriage? Because since you haven't stated any moral codes so far and just said plain out that being gay is a right. Wouldn't it be right for me to say that murder is ok because that is how someone feels that they should do what they want? To be different? Of course not, but lets establish some things before we continue this debate.
Gay right, yes or no

We all have a right to show that we are who we are. Being gay is a right. It is that persons choice on if he/she should be able to be who they want to be. If they want to be gay then that is there choice. It shouldn't be a law. It shouldn't have to be voted on. We all have the right to have a house, a car, gays are the same. They are normal people that want to be different. Is being different bad? or have people gone and dropped the fact that gays are human to? We are all the same! Some just choose to live to be different...
Nationality (on its own) is not a good reason to support something

I only object to my opponent's definition of "good reason", being that this term in itself is very arbitrary and opinionated. For some, a "good reason" in their view may not have to be based on facts. I think that we should each have our own definitions on the matter given its arbitrary nature. However, I agree to all of the other terms set forth by my opponent and again, look forward to this debate.
Nationality (on its own) is not a good reason to support something

It is not uncommon to see individuals who support people, sports teams, or even militaries simply because that entity shares in their nationality. In this debate, I will argue that, on its own, a shared nationality is not a good reason to hold or express support for any of the above stated (or other) groups. The first round will only be for the acceptance or rejection of definitions. The following two rounds will be for arguments and rebuttals. I thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate and look forward to a good debate. Nationality- a body of people sharing common descent, history, language, etc; a nation (1). Good reason- rational i.e. being internally consistent and founded on facts. Support- to give aid or courage to (2). (1) http://dictionary.reference.com... (World English Dictionary) (2) http://dictionary.reference.com... (World English Dictionary)
Americans have a right to own semi-auto weapons

"the biggest factor to violence is motive and mental illness" Yes but you fail to acknowledge access to guns as that is absolutely a risk factor to violence! "This country needs to properly address mental illness" Most gun advocates who are typically conservative use this as a diversion tactic despite the fact that the Republicans in congress opposed the Pete Domenici act. "Yes we should have equal power but no one should have nuclear weapons." Then why did you bring up "equal power?" And I thank you for this good debate!
Americans have a right to own semi-auto weapons

The FBI's statistics show that the number of gun murders is steadily decreasing as shown below. http://www.fbi.gov... Negative the biggest factor to violence is motive and mental illness as you just said Aron had a history of PTSD and schizophrenia. Holmes had schizophrenia, as did the Sandy Hook shooter. This country needs to properly address mental illness and ensure that it is treated. Might I add that the mother did not lock up the firearm. Blame lays with the mother in the case. Yes we should have equal power but no one should have nuclear weapons. Not us or any other country! It is highly unlikely that a nuclear weapon would be used in the event of a revolution since it would be firing upon your own country. To use such a weapon would yield no winner in a civil war. You say "smarten up" but that is rather vague, you do not give any suggestions as to how people might do that. Back to the topic at hand. Answer a hypothetical: What would you do if three armed men broke into your house and you just turned in your weapons because of some ban that was implemented. How would you protect your family? Remember when you prohibit something you create an underground market that creates crimes such as alcohol in the 20s and drugs today. We cant stop people from attaining drugs and we cant stop them from getting guns.
Americans have a right to own semi-auto weapons

First thing I wanna bring up for Round 4 is that I am opposed to destroying pump action rifles and shotguns as the video clearly states however I do believe rifles should be confiscated from people who are not hunters shot guns and semi-autos should be confiscated and brought to the US military. With that being said I have a few things to say about guns. Aron Alexis had a history of PTSD paranoid schizophrenia and GUN VIOLENCE!!!! A study from around 2001 confirmed that access to guns is the biggest factor to violence. "What we do know is that the militia was meant to have equal power" The government owns the entire US military so are you suggesting we have the same weapons as they have (including nuclear weapons?) "The founders made it well known that the people should always keep the government in check but how are we to do that today? what vote?" Again as I had said in Round 2 we need to really smarten up!
Americans have a right to own semi-auto weapons

Well we will never know if they would agree so we have to go by the words they left behind. What we do know is that the militia was meant to have equal power so its safe to say that if they did have the ability to see into the future they would deem it necessary for people to have semi-automatic weapons. The founders made it well known that the people should always keep the government in check but how are we to do that today? What vote? That hasn't exactly done us a lot of good looking at the condition of politics today now has it. The government is clearly power hungry looking to expand its power wherever and however possible so the last thing we need is for them to try and tell us that we cannot be aloud to have power to rival their own. It is unfortunate that things have gotten this far out of control but we have to deal with the world as it is now not how we wish it would be. We need to put the government in check before we need to worry about stripping the people of its ability to defend itself. Australia and England let their governments strip them of their weapons and since then crime has exploded due to a defenseless civilian population. http://www.youtube.com...
Americans have a right to own semi-auto weapons

As I stated before any gun should have traceability and its irrelevant that semi-auto weapons didn't exist because if they had meant muskets that's what they would have said. They also had cannons and swords at the time but they chose the word "arms" referring to weapons of war. As for apolitical Americans I have to agree. People are far too careless with whats going on in politics thus allowing them to run things however they see fit. Stupid people and government indeed! But we are getting off topic.
Americans have a right to own semi-auto weapons

"a militia is formed by the people themselves comprising any man capable of bearing arms." Yes, however as the second amendment had clearly stated about the militia (the men capable of bearing arms) that it had to be well regulated. "a weapon used in a murder could belong to anyone and there would be no way to trace it back to the owner." Same thing can happen with a semi-automatic weapon. Additionally, back when the second amendment was written semi-automatic weapons did not exist, they only had muskets. The founders never predicted the existence of semi-automatic weapons! Now as for the point about the peoples revolt against the government, we live in a representative democracy and we (somewhat effectively) elect the officials we want into government that we can trust, we may not live in a direct democracy however as we have an electoral system that can lead to gerrymandering (like in the 2000 presidential election and the 2012 congressional election) where the popular vote goes in one direction while the electoral vote or amount of officials go in the other direction. However that is not even the big reason we have such a horrible government. I think the primary reason our government sucks is because the American people have become so apolitical! While the people who are not apolitical are being lied by the news media this is especially bad on Fox News however there are a few shows on MSNBC that tell the truth but that's it really. My point is in our representative democracy our government represents the people and with stupid people comes a stupid government We have the opportunity however to smarten up, get involved in politics and vote for the right people like Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein and Rush Holt to government but we just don't!
Americans have a right to own semi-auto weapons

It does not say for use of a militia only it does say "the right of the people" and im not opposed to having some regulations on weapons. Any gun is a lethal weapon that should not just be floating around unaccounted for. Most pro gun rights people are completely opposed to having their weapon registered but it is necessary to have some accountability. Otherwise a weapon used in a murder could belong to anyone and there would be no way to trace it back to the owner. Now as the second amendment states a well regulated militia is necessary in the security of a free state. Militia does not mean the military, a militia is formed by the people themselves comprising any man capable of bearing arms. Those that wrote the document made known that it is the responsibility of the people not the government to ensure freedom. The government was originally created only to protect our rights. In the event of an enemy invasion or if our own government became the enemy the militia was to have equal power. Thus far the government has done everything possible to disband any sort of militia including an attempt at banning assault weapons. If say the government strayed so far from justice that a 2nd revolution were needed how might a militia compete with a tyrannical government that comically out powered them?
Xbox 360 is better than PS3

Good luck!Rebuttals 1. Having a bigger fan base has nothing to do with being better and you have not proved that it has a bigger fan base therefore this is an unestablished point.2. God of War and the uncharted series are also really popular exclusives and how good the games are, don't really determine how good the console itself is. 3. That was really two points you made. First of all, just because someone pays for it, why wouldn't there be a stupid arrogant twat? Second of all, to play online on Play station is free, Xbox is not. In the long run, buying a Playstation is a lot less money. Also, if you want to bring money into this, can we say which console is overall better? Like maybe which one is a better deal?
Xbox 360 is better than PS3

Now I know this argument has probably been iterated a million or so times, but for my first debate I wanted to do something non offensive and simple. So I will be defending the Xbox and Con will be on the side of the PlayStation. Now onto my argument. Why the Xbox is better. 1.It has been out longer so has bigger better fan base. 2.Better exclusives E.G Halo, Forza. 3.Paying for Online gaming makes it less likely to run into a stupid arrogant twat, as if you pay for it you don't want to waste the money.
DDO Tournament - Top Tier: Intervention to Stop Rights Abuses

PrefaceThis is part of the DDO Tournament being run by Mikal; TN05 and I are in the top tier, and I look forward to a fantastic debate. I thank him in advance for accepting :)Full TopicIntervention in the internal political processes of other nations is morally permissible when a goal of the intervention is to halt human rights abuses.DefinitionsThese definitions are from Merriam Webster, American Heritage, and Oxford Dictionaries.Intervene - “To interfere with the outcome or course, especially of a condition or process”Political Process - “The administration of governance via the interaction of social, political, and internal economic elements of a society”Goal - "something trying to be done or achieved"Halt - "put an end to something"Human Rights - those rights listed in the UDHR, ICCPR, and ICESR documents; to commit a human rights abuse is violate one of the rights set out in those document.Debaters are free to debate/discuss the threshold for "moral permissibility" in the text of the debate.BOPAs Pro is making a positive claim, and as he is affirming the topic, he bears the sole BOP. He has also agreed to this arrangement via PM.Rules1. No forfeits2. All citations must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1: Pro's Opening ArgumentsR2: Con's Opening Arguments; Pro's 1st RebuttalR3: Con's 1st Rebuttal; Pro's 2nd RebuttalR4: Con's 2nd Rebuttal; Pro's 3rd Rebuttal and ClosingR5: Con's 3rd Rebuttal and Closing; Pro types "Pass."I look forward to a great debate :)
Benevolent Dictatorships work better than Democracies

Since Pro, as Instigator, hasn't stated any rules or guidelines of the flow of this debate. By default, I present my arguments and rebuttals on R2. I highly encourage Pro to further improve his arguments on R2 and thus my arguments and rebuttals will come after that. If Pro is contended in what he wrote above, he could always "forfeit" the round and thus, my arguments and rebuttals will come next. Then, his rebuttals afterward should come after.
Evolution vs. Creation

In a recent debate concerning the existence of God, my opponent continued to deny the fact of evolution. Because of that, I wish to start a debate just concerning that topic. I, Pro, will be arguing the fact that evolution is true.My opponent, Con, will be arguing that evolution is false and that Creationism is true.Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Round 1 is solely for acceptance. To not state your arguments.Round 2 is for arguments, but not for rebuttals.Round 3 is for rebuttals.Round 4 is for final rebuttals and conclusion.As that is all I wish to cover for now, I will allow this debate to commence.
Israel's 2008 military intervention in the Gaza Strip was not executed humanely.

To say that Gaza engaged Israel do to border issues is just false.From Nov. through Dec. Hamas fired 213 rockets and 126 mortars into Israel.Israel finally said enough when 20 rockets were fired from Gaza on Dec. 17. As stated before,Hamas has constantly attacking Israel.When Israel gave the strip to the Pal. in 2005 it was an act of peace.But as you can see that has not stopped any attacks from happening. In closing, Cast Lead was initiated to stop terrorists from causing harm to Israel