BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There should be equal marriage for all

As I stated in my comments section because I couldn't change the title of this debate, I wanted to argue the fact that there should be equal opportunity for marriage, i.e Gay Marriage. It seems however, my opponent has gone a different way with this, but whatever... I find my opponents argument of a "stupid, inconsiderate, fussy, hard to live with, etc.," person a little transparent. Every person should be allowed the ability to be able to get married, often times when people enter a sturdy/stable relationships they change themselves and sometimes become better people or drop bad habits to appease the person they are with. In which case they do deserve to get married in addition to being able to have an equal marriage. "so allowing anybody to be married, no matter how they'd treat their partner, would be completely unethical. Additionally, it provides no motivation for a person to be a better wife or husband." Again, this doesn't really apply to the topic at hand. What I am describing in my resolution is the ability to allow any human the possibility of getting married. By my opponents statement I am somewhat questioning if they are anti - marriage period. I believe all humans should be allowed the opportunity to be married for a few reasons. First and foremost are the legal and tax benefits. In most states if a gay person is hospitalized, their partner cannot see them because they are not considered a spouse, nor are they considered family. In addition, if gay couples were recognized as married it would be easier to file taxes as they could file jointly and pay the same amount of money instead of separately and double. Second, Basic human rights entail that there are three main freedoms in life : life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness(http://en.wikipedia.org...). By not allowing gay couples, or a man who is grouchy not to enter in to a marriage we are infringing upon simple human rights. Finally, all people should be provided with the opportunity to marry due to possible health benefits (http://www.apa.org...) according to the people surveyed they were generally happier and healthier than those who were unmarried.
There should be equal marriage for all

Not everyone should have equal marriage. http://en.wikipedia.org... According to Wikipedia, equal marriage means either royal inbreeding or homosexuality, which very few people would actually be happy with, so your resolution is a little fuzzy. Anyways... If nobody wants to marry a person, because he is stupid, inconsiderate, fussy, hard to live with, etc., that person is not entitled to any marriage at all, and especially not an equal one. Nobody should ever be forced to marry someone when they don't like the person they're marrying. Marriage is supposed to be based on love and trust, and be consensual, so allowing anybody to be married, no matter how they'd treat their partner, would be completely unethical. Additionally, it provides no motivation for a person to be a better wife or husband. http://en.wikipedia.org... Thank you for starting this debate.
There is a 5th dimension

Thanks for the quick response. "Math does not truly 'exist' in life. It is abstract, and not entirely there. It does not take up matter. It is an idea." Morals do not truly "exist" in life, either. However, if I were to say, "There are morals," that would be a perfectly valid statement. Same applies to the fifth dimension. Just because we cannot create something doesn't mean it can't exist. Now, your definition is not entirely correct when applied to math. In mathematics, it is defined as the number of coordinates needed to specify a point on an object. http://mathworld.wolfram.com... For example, in a 1-D number line, only one number is needed to specify a point. In a 2-D coordinate plane, two numbers are needed to specify a point. In a 3-D XYZ depth graph, three numbers are necessary to identify a point. This continues for each dimension, even if we cannot grasp the concept with our minds. This picture attempts to illustrate this concept: http://upload.wikimedia.org... However, we don't understand it, because we only live in three spatial dimensions. Also, in Rick Osborne's and Ed Strauss' "Bible Angels and Demons" http://www.zondervan.com..., heaven is described to be an alternate dimension. Obviously, it is not length, width, height, or time, so it must be a fifth dimension. When you die, your mind and soul are sent off to a fifth dimension. Where else could it go? According to Acer, when you sleep, you feel your mind sinking. Your mind can't be sinking into one of our four dimensions; it must be a fifth dimension. There. Two possible explanations. And your only argument against the first one is that humans can't comprehend it. Thank you again, and good luck.
There is a 5th dimension

Math does not truly "exist" in life. It is abstract, and not entirely there. It does not take up matter. It is an idea. Definition of "dimension": a property of space; extension in a given direction: A straight line has one dimension, a parallelogram has two dimensions, and a parallelepiped has three dimensions. . http://dictionary.reference.com... 5D objects cannot be created in real life, for the sole reason that the 5th dimension does not exist.
There is a 5th dimension

Thank you for posting this debate. To start with, a quote from Wikipedia: "Abstract five-dimensional space occurs frequently in mathematics, and is a perfectly legitimate construct." The fifth dimension in mathematics occurs when N=5. Here are some diagrams that explain the tesseract, which is essentially a five-dimensional cube. http://robertinventor.com... There is a fifth dimension in mathematics; thus, there is a fifth dimension. I rest my case. Thank you for your time.
There is a 5th dimension

"I am saying that it can't exist so it can't exist. " Just because you say it can't exist doesn't mean it can't exist. If I say that pies don't exist, pies will still exist. "In order to win this debate, you must prove, without a doubt, that it does not exist, which you have not done. " I disagree. Why would I want to prove that the fifth dimension doesn't exist? "The concept of infinity is similar. There is no infinity existent, and it is impossible. It does not exist, but can be thought of. The same way you might think of a unicorn. It is a word, but it does not exist. " Infinity is not impossible in math. Infinity does exist, in math. There is a fifth dimension. In math. Note that you never actually responded directly to the comparison to, "There are morals," and you didn't dub it irrelevant, so I assume that you conceded that point. "Heaven is a parallel universe, not a dimension. A dimension would be capable of going on to infinity (which it never will, but it could), but there are not infinity different universes. It has a limit. " Searching "parallel dimension" in Wikipedia redirects to "parallel universe". Parallel dimensions, acting as a fifth dimension (alternate), is a popular idea in science fiction. It is applied to the real world in heaven. In what direction does your soul travel when you die? The fifth dimension, obviously. You gave no explanation for this, so I assume that you conceded that point, as well. Also note how you don't explain why the fifth dimension would have any limit, or why a dimension needs to go on into infinity, a concept which you ironically stated was impossible. "Your evidence for the feeling of your mind sleeping is from Acer, a new debater. That is not a source at all. " Here are some sources, then: "As the tide of our reflections is only changed by a gradual recess after we sink into repose. .. " (. http://chestofbooks.com...) "We seem to run; and, destitute of force Our sinking limbs forsake us in the course. .. " (. http://chestofbooks.com...) "A await your final response. " Um. .. CONCLUSION: In math, the fifth dimension is a perfectly legitimate construct. Just because we cannot perceive or create it doesn't mean it can't exist. Furthermore, the travelling through the fifth dimension is evidenced by the direction the soul travels upon dying, as it can't be any of the previous four. It must be a fifth dimension.
There is a 5th dimension

I am not saying that the fact that we can't create it is the reason it can't exist. I am saying that it can't exist so it can't exist. It is not possible for an object to be in the the 5th dimension, because there are only 4: Height, Length, Width, and Time. In order to win this debate, you must prove, without a doubt, that it does not exist, which you have not done. The concept of infinity is similar. There is no infinity existent, and it is impossible. It does not exist, but can be thought of. The same way you might think of a unicorn. It is a word, but it does not exist. Heaven is a parallel universe, not a dimension. A dimension would be capable of going on to infinity (which it never will, but it could), but there are not infinity different universes. It has a limit. Your evidence for the feeling of your mind sleeping is from Acer (http://www.debate.org...), a new debater. That is not a source at all. A await your final response.
Anime studies should be offered in American high schools

Accepted.INTENTIONS:1. My knowledge on anime is limited to very few T.V. shows, and comic books. For all intensive purposes, I am willing to do research on any anime saga that my opponent brings up in this debate however. My intention is that the reader overlook my in-experience with a lot of anime, as I will be attempting to do this debate through principals, and personal philosophies, etc.2. In accordance to this debate tying around elective classes, I will try to focus my arguments a little more on neccesities, and try to hash out problems that some current schooling systems may have. My intention is for the audience to realize that my position shouldn't be assumed that I currently agree with all of the trending schooling functions (I know alot of schools offer other silly classes such as "study of middle earth" etc.I look forward to this debate, and wish you good luck Roy!My appolagies for such a long wait.Your definitions seem fine to me. I have no definitions as of this time, as I hope this debate's purpose is clear enough that there won't be such definitional problems here-in the debate.
do smart phones make kids dumber

kids who have phones are becoming socially dumb. They think that they are more connected to the world and their friends all around the world. Yet actually kids are less connected than ever. Instead of talking with people in person they would rather type them messages. Kids can walk down the halls at school talking to the kids right next to them without ever saying a word. More and more kids are becoming less involved in the world and more and more involved in their phones and technical deviceces
do smart phones make kids dumber

Dear inventors, software designers, and other assorted geniuses (or is that genii?), responsible for all the amazing advances that make our lives so much easier: Please stop. Seriously, please stop right now. All this "help" you're offering is causing me to devolve, rapidly. Did you see that movie "Benjamin Button," where Brad Pitt just kept growing younger? Well, that's what's happening to me, but just inside my brain, involving hundreds of simple tasks that I used to know how to do. I realized all of this a few weeks ago, when my wife asked me, as a sign of love and dedication, if I knew her cell phone number by heart. I looked this beautiful woman straight in the eye, and I guessed . . . wrong. Way wrong. But of course I couldn't remember her number, because I've never known it. From our first date, she's been a name in my cell phone. In fact, if you hung me over a pit of live crocodiles I couldn't remember seven digits in a row anymore. I've lost that ability because I don't need it. The machines do it for me. [And also, that's the part of my brain that's now used for fantasy football.] Without my computer "assistance," I often end up "Porky Pig-ging it" -- by which I mean trying to spell a word, realizing I can't, before eventually just choosing a completely different word. I tried to spell "spatula" for eight minutes the other day, before finally settling on "Food Picker Upper Thingy." And if typing something without spellcheck is hard, writing things out by hand -- that is now all but impossible for me. I haven't given my mother a proper birthday card in years, because I don't trust myself to successfully hand-write "Luv Ya Bunches!" anymore. I've done the math on this. Well, that's actually not true, I have an app on my phone that does stuff like math for me . . . but anyway, I've looked at that app, and it tells me, based on the rate of invention, and my rate of atrophy when it comes to simple tasks, that at the current pace I'll be reduced to a slobbering infant within six years. So please, innovators, I beg of you, stop now. My very life depends on it.
Soldiers are murderers

Thank you for clearing that up. Although I must say that the debate has obviously taken a different direction now. I will not personally agree or disagree with what you said in round two. Instead, I will try to win this debate.The debate was mainly to establish the difference, or lack of difference, between killing someone for personal motives and killing someone for a paycheck.The obviousness of the act stands. Whereas the motive decides as the indicator of right or wrong. In the case of the soldier, he signs up not to the notion that he is going to be killer for his country and by it stands justified in doing so. His motive here before signing up is not to take upon this role directly. In the case of personal reasons, the motive is directly linked with it, for the act is murder only. The soldier takes upon himself for whatever reason the state has provided the need for participation to in-list. Not directly linked to killing, but to serving his country. May it be that his motives are directly linked to wanting to kill people in that situation it will be an act of murder if still provided he feels that way during the act. It comes down to the motive must be directly linked with the act.
Soldiers are murderers

Thank you for your reply. I understand that the title of the debate may be vague, and by soldiers I am mainly referring to those fighting in modern day wars where it is the soldier's personal choice whether to sign up or not, and by murder I do mean the ethical and moral perception of the crime rather than the literal meaning, as I am aware that the term 'murder' is law based. I also appreciate the view on how our morals are based on how we perceive certain aspects of life as we grow up. The debate was mainly to establish the difference, or lack of difference, between killing someone for personal motives and killing someone for a pay check (based on the morals which the vast majority of society share). I believe there is obviously a key difference to modern day warfare as in most cases it is an option, whereas in WW1&2 it was mainly compulsory for men to fight. However I believe there is a thin line between illegal contract killings and modern warfare that is thickened by laws set down by authorities and such things as the romanticism of soldiers in the media. I understand that it isn't in most of the soldiers' intentions to kill 'innocent' people, but in many cases such casualties have occurred in crossfire, which leads to the point that violence can not be solved with more violence. For the conscious act point, I believe that whether it is a conscious decision in which a person believes within their own set of morals that what the are doing is right or if what they are doing is wrong all comes under the same bracket, and that doesn't stop it from being right or wrong. Obviously every situation is different, but if a serial murderer and rapist commits such crimes on the grounds that they believe what they have done is morally right, they should not be set free to commit further crimes of that manner just because of their beliefs, I also do not believe they should be raped and murdered as a punishment, they should instead receive mental help. I do not think that it should be seen as morally right to kill someone as a soldier for the interests of the governing body any more than it is to kill someone for your own interests. I look forward to seeing your response.
Soldiers are murderers

Killing on itself is not wrong nor right. The colouring of it depends on the motive. The reason people think it's wrong is because of how the media portraits it as bad. Why? So that people don't go out and get their own justice. Also, linked with guilt as you see often on television shows where someone kills a person by accident is consumed with guilt. Even though it's not that person fault and therefore guilt should not be a response of the act. Now that has been cleared up lets now start the debate. What classify's as murder is the conscious motive of the perpetrator. Soldiers are not initially trained to go out and just kill everybody they see insight. The next thing is that they are trained severely in combat by the army and within that it becomes second nature. Not a conscious act in situation where killing might occur. By that soldiers are not by definition murderers, but do share the responsibility for killing out of certain motives. In most cases these people are just following orders in which not sufficient enough a reason to classify it as unconscious killings. It does leave room to think about the purpose of the army training these soldiers for lethal combat. As perhaps they are the cause for you to think soldiers are murderers. For they are the once performing it. I will ask of you to look into what I have said and if they are really responsible. Round two, let it be an interesting round.
You should hire lazy people

Okay, there is almost always an easy way to do your job. "The easy way will most likely fail." Quiet the contrary, doing stuff the hard way is what will make you fail. Juggling too many balls in the air will make you lose focus and drop one. So if you juggle 3 balls at a time, which is the easy way, you will be able to do it correctly over and over again with new balls. But if you if you do it the hard way and take 6 balls at once you will FAIL. In Norway we don't have pizza hut but we have peppes pizza which I am going to compare it to since I know how they work. So first of say you don't have any machines that picks out your toppings for the pizza. The first day working there the lazy person finds out how many pizza on average they sell in a day, this you can just ask the manager about, then he makes a little more then the amount of dough that is equivalent to the average to be on the safe side (the dough that is left over he can use as the first pizza the next day or mix it in with the next dough). Then he finds out how little the minimum amount of ingredients he needs to have on the pizza to satisfy the customer and makes that in quantities equivalent of how many pizzas he needs to put it on. Now he needs to do the minimal work that his work requires and can be lazy the rest of his work day. ( Making the pizza takes no time and any idiot can do it in no time). Now over to the mechanised version that I know exists in 90 Peppes Pizza restaurants: you do the same thing but have a machine who flattens the dough, cuts and measures the amount of toppings on the pizza. All the lazy person has to do is put it in and take it out of the oven before he serves it. And thus the lazy person can keep being lazy. You say lazy people just want to get paid and go home, well I say that is what every person wants to do. But if any person is given an intriguing task they will do it, but the lazy person will find an easy way, and that is why you should hire lazy people. http://no.wikipedia.org...
You should hire lazy people

You have a good point, but still. Lazy people will ALWAYS find a easy way of doing it. And sometimes that easy way, Is not the right way. The easy way will most likely fail. Take this example, A guy works at Pizza Hut. He needs to make a large pepperoni pizza. What would be the easy way out of that? THERE IS NONE. Lazy people just want to get paid and go home, Without doing any of the work. But, There are some jobs lazy people can do, (McDonalds, Burger King, etc..) But those jobs are simply not the that good, And only pay little.
You should hire lazy people

Thank you for participating in this debate, now without further ado lets jump right inn. By definition it does not state that a lazy person will not meet the performance standards of the company who hire him/her and you shouldn't hire people that don't. It simply states that the person dislikes working hard to achieve a goal, by this we can take out that he will find the fastest and easiest way to achieve the goal for the person who has hired him/her. And thereby save time and money, now and in future situations similar to this one. "I choose a lazy person to do a hard job. Because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it." - Bill Gates Now I will try to explain the thinking process of a lazy worker: - A lazy worker will, as previously stated, try to find the fastest and easiest way to do his work so he can do other stuff (be lazy). - To do this he will ask himself some questions when he is given work: * Can I simplify my work? * Can I not do this work/find someone who has already done it or can I argue it to be unnecessary work? * Can I automate it and make a machine do it? * Can I make it easier by working with someone or give it to someone more suited for this work? * Can I distribute my work so many people do most of the work for me? A lazy person might only be lazy because he/she does not get enough challenge that speak to them in their work. So this means it is somewhat up to the boss to find the right places for the lazy person to work. Furthermore I would like to state that the lazy person can in fact make his laziness work with him. Example: The lazy person makes a loooong password on his/her social non-work related sites like facebook and twitter, what this could accomplish is when the person goes to those sites he/she would be to lazy to even enter the sites and go back to doing productive work for their company. Sources: http://www.goodreads.com... http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
You should hire lazy people

This is my first debate, English is not my first language so please correct me where needed. First round: Accepting and definition( I will be pro hiring lazy people) Second round: Argument for and against, no rebuttal Third round: Rebuttals Definition: Lazy : not liking to work hard or to be active : not having much activity : causing people to feel that they do not want to be active : moving slowly All sources are acceptable other then personal once. Sources shall be shown.
Obama is better than romney and maybe better than this site

Obama does not hate America and he is not an athiest. He is a red-blooded Christain who has done more to improve the rights of domestic classes than many other presidents. Bush left the country in debt and overstretched in two overseas wars. Obama ended the Iraq war in less than 3 years and has reduced military presence in Afghanistan. He has developed rights for gay and lesbian Americans as well as creating a policy to ensure that the poor have a chance and quality life and the rich actually have to pay their fair share. For too long presidents have forgotten domestic policy in favour of protecting the rights of people at home. Obama is not perfect, but he is a strong and powerful leader who commands respect from both our allies and our enemies America was a mockery under the Bush administration and Obama is the antidote in ensuring that America gets the respect it deserves as the worlds greatest country. Only a traitor to the USA would call him a bad president, Obama has made our country strong again. There isn't really much that I can say about this. I'm just 14 years old and I don't understand much about politics, but can't you just give the guy a break? It isn't easy leading a country and trying to solve every single problem that comes up. He's doing his best to help us so he has my respect.