BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Minarcho-socialism(pro) versus your choice of government and/or economy(con).

Yes this immoral, but it works. I use an antagonist, let say a terrorist organization, to motivate the masses to comply for their security. I use a real threat and propaganda to ensure a state of emergency. I would have control over this terrorist group and thus negate them in till I was questioned, then an attack would be successful. I would only control the leadership, the rest of the group would be actual dissenters so I can control the opposition.
Minarcho-socialism(pro) versus your choice of government and/or economy(con).

As I said before, I was saving minarchism for this round, and I will rebut my opponent's arguments as well.Minarchism helps promote freedomNow, I will admit that authoritarianism is more efficient in that it can survive more often than minarchism. That's only because they are stronger governments. However, just because it is more survivable and is stronger, doesn't mean we should use that form of government. I contend that the government which is best is one which only guarantees our rights. The less government is involved in our daily lives, the more freedom we have. With fewer taxes, we have more freedom to do what we want with our own money. Without compulsory education, we have freedom to let our children do what they want, or what their parents want for them. Without the Patriot act, we have more freedom of expression. So on and so forth. You can probably see where I'm going with this. Ultimately, it comes down to whether you prefer security or freedom. I admit I cannot sway any voters who already believe security is preferrable to freedom, but I believe most people may believe freedom is more important than security. If all we have government do is defend our liberties, then we have maximum liberty. Rebuttals:Quotes from my opponent are in italics:In the economy of a perfect state, the national needs come before the individual needsThe problem with this idea is that it can lead to some groups of people starving. It may be in the interest of the nation to let minorities starve in order to benefit the state. This is immoral and violates rights. the people willingly give up there services and goods to the state being driven by nationalistic urges.If it's willingly being done, then what makes anyone do this? How would you even have this economy when most people probably won't just give up their services and goods to the state?This allows total efficiency, the workers never strike and will work as long as necessary to complete the task for the good of the nation.This all seems theoretical, and doesn't seem that strong of an argument. Perhaps you should offer a specific example if you can.
Minarcho-socialism(pro) versus your choice of government and/or economy(con).

In the economy of a perfect state, the national needs come before the individual needs, and the people willingly give up there services and goods to the state being driven by nationalistic urges. This allows total efficiency, the workers never strike and will work as long as necessary to complete the task for the good of the nation. A community spirit coupled with a overriding omnipotent voice is far superior to workers disusing what to do.
Young people on tobacco farms

Child labor should be illegal on tobacco for many reasons. Tobacco farms are dangerous and there are no many agriculture laws taking precautions to protect young people from getting injured or preventing fatal accidents. The laws vary state by state, and children as young as 6 could work on tobacco farms, as long as it does not interfere with education. Hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries happen annually because children are not old enough. This is just with the machinery. Working on tobacco farms has unavoidable health risks with nicotine absorption that causes diseases, even from the surrounding areas of the farm. Children have the same rights anyone else does and should be protected under low $4.25 hourly wages and dangerous conditions.
The Bible shouldn't be taken literally.

Conclusion:Pro has a gross misunderstanding of history. He claims to be a student of avid history, yet he challenges the historical methodology that all historians/scholars use to verify a document or event in history. Pro has not shown any evidence to that we should not take the bible literally. Meanwhile I gave credible sources and objective facts, and evidences to verify the bible from the OT to the NT. Pro has not given any credible sources, nor has he given me any facts to show his position is true. He has only given opinion on the matter. Opinions don't get anybody anywhere. I have shown how the bible reliable, and how trustworthy it is. Archaeologists don't use the Koran or Book of Mormons to do archaeology. They use the bible because it is the most reliable book in history, because it is God's word. I wanted to give more evidences in this debate. Unfortunately, I did not have enough room due to the 8000+ limit. Pro seems to deny the historical methodology that all historians/scholars use to verify an event/document. Genesis does not contradict science, Pro has failed to who how it has. The Bible does not give the age of the earth, nor does it say how old human beings are. Pro there is no reason at all for the apostles/disciples to lie about Jesus. Are you telling me that 12+ men got together to lose their jobs, and follow Christ. They had nothing to gain from this, they had no jobs, wealth, fame, fortune, or love. They were hated by all people Jew or Gentile. They were threatened and martyred for preaching that Jesus was risen. There is nothing, I mean nothing to gain from doing this at all. No historian/scholar denies Jesus existence, life, burial, death, and the 4 facts about his resurrection. 75% do believe in the resurrection, while 25% don't believe in the resurrection. The 25% that does not believe in the resurrection do not deny those 4 facts I mentioned about Jesus resurrection. They deny the most logical conclusion about these 4 facts. They will say it was a hallucination, but that has been disprove. Pro's agenda is to promote skepticism to all atheists. This kind of thinking gets us nowhere in life. There are many skeptics looking for truth, and for answers. And, by telling them that you want to 'disprove the bible', just shows how much you hate it. Pro is being dishonest to all skeptics who are searching for answers. I would advise any skeptic to not listen to this kind of thinking. You go were the evidence leads you. The bible is the most trustworthy book in history, and to deny it as historical fact is to shoot yourself in the foot.
The Bible shouldn't be taken literally.

The first half of the Bible (the Old Testament) is composed of ancient stories that were written by approximately 40 different completely unrelated authors. In addition, the stories were passed down mostly orally for hundreds of years. How could anyone possibly expect such stories to be even close to their original states? Taking Old Testament stories literally would be just like believing in Greek Mythology. The second half of the Bible (the New Testament) is composed of stories that were written after Jesus's death by 4 authors (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) who were trying to promote Christianity and spread it to the general public. Obviously they would stretch the truth in order to appeal to a wider audience. Taking New Testament stories literally would be just like believing every word of every commercial you hear on TV. Note that I don't mean to say that the Bible is completely false. The Bible's stories are great metaphors, allegories, and parables for portraying Christianity's teachings. Also note that when I say "taking the Bible literally", I mean truly believing that... -God created everything in 7 days -Humans are sinful because a snake talked Eve into eating the forbidden fruit of knowledge -Noah built a ship to save a bunch of animals from a global flood -Language barriers were created by God to stop humans from building a really tall tower -Hell is a pit of fire in the middle of the Earth where sinners burn for eternity -Heaven is a realm beyond the borders of the Ptolemaic Universe where God and all his angels live -Jesus resurrected 3 days after he died -Jesus claimed to be the only one who could lead people to God All of the above claims are either ancient mythology or Christian propaganda; not scientific/historical fact. The Bible is really good at representing Christian morals when read under the right lens, but when taken too literally, the Bible becomes a barrier between Christianity and science/other religions/secular government/society in general. I look forward to my opponent's argument.
Abortion

Pro: Pro-choice Con: Pro-life I would consider my views regarding abortion more on the pro life side, And here is why. For one, Abortion is murder, Murder is wrong. Secondly, No woman has the right to terminate another life, This is not an issue of body autonomy or woman"s rights, It"s about whether women have the right to end another life because it"s more convenient for her to do so. Lastly, I do not believe that abortions should be illegal all together, There should be exceptions, Just like every other law that operates in today"s society. The only cases where abortion should be an option for women is when: 1-it is the product of rape/incest. 2- it is apparent that having the child poses a deadly threat to the mother, I. E, It is predictable that the mother will be seriously harmed/killed in the process of giving birth to the baby. Women should not have the right to end the life of another because it is more convienient for her to end its life.
Abortion

We've come at things from different angles but just about ended up in the same place. And my morals are no doubt just as selective as Cons and also Just as selective as everyone else's, For that matter. I would suggest that this is why current social legislation is as it is. Murder by definition is unlawful killing and as such, Abortion cannot be regarded as murder if social legislation dictates otherwise. Ultimately and realistically the power to legislate lies within human society and not with any greater universal authority. If British society should deem to legislate in favour of a total ban on abortion, Then I would be just as happy to support that decision as I am now in supporting current laws. In this respect I presently remain100% pro choice. Nonetheless it would also be fair to suggest that I remain 50/50 in my conceptually subjective approach to the morality of abortion.
Abortion

I believe that this is the issue on this topic and why many people can"t move forward with this. I think everyone has skewed ideas of what other people on the other side want. Sure, I have met other pro-life people who are very extreme with their beliefs, But most of them have similar views to mine. My point in this debate is to find middle ground between the two sides, Not to get people fully on board with 100% pro life beliefs. To comment on "selective morality", I don"t find that my view says life is more valuable in one case over another, In all cases it is valuble, But in the extreme cases where the women doesn"t have a say in it, Even though it is taking a life, She should at least have the option. To summarize, It seems that when people have opinions on this topic they are either way far left or way far right on their opinions regarding this issue, But there needs to be some negotiation and some willingness to agree with the other side. I hope that I maybe have changed your own opinions on this matter, So maybe you aren"t 100% pro choice but now you are 50/50, Somewhere in the middle.
Abortion

Abortion is acceptable when Con deems it to be acceptable and abortion is unacceptable when Con deems it so. The taking of life is acceptable when Con deems it to be acceptable and the taking of life is unacceptable when Con deems it so. This is clearly double standards, Selective morality and quite clearly "Pro Choice" rather than absolute "Pro Life". Pro choice as dictated by collective social decision making and legislation. Which in most civilised societies is already the status quo. As such, Con and I seem to be in general agreement. So how do we take this debate forwards?
Abortion

You're Pro Life. 1) Are you vegetarian or vegan? 2) Do you think that it is righteous to extinguish life in defence of your country? 3) The product of both rape and incest is likely to be a perfectly viable foetus. Your Pro Life morality is somewhat selective in this regard. Pro Lifers tend to be selective and hypocritical and point 3 would already suggest that you are no different. Can you change my mind?
The future does not exist and can therefore not be changed.

"I can't deny the existence of a future..... my idea about what and how it would pan out may not be correct, but that doesn't mean there is NO future. More importantly, even my own imperfect idea of the future, whatever it may be, clearly exists since it does impact and shape my present thoughts and actions."- rachael stuarz This is what was my point. Future is always there, it may be imperfect. But it is always there. And it affects our present. People are so often paralysed by fearful thoughts of the future, they make plans for the future, constantly think about the future and what would happen if..., trying to change their or others' future when in fact the future does not exist.' Well, that is the essence of life. We have choices, and we have a mind as to how to live our life. We think about our future because we don't know what our future is. It is something that is in our control and that is why it's so terrifying. But it does exist and that t\is what propels us to do better because future is something we can control. It is strong enough to affect our present, and thus, it exists. Thanks for the debate PS: sorry for the forfeit in the previous round, my server crashed.
The future does not exist and can therefore not be changed.

suite101. com. Unless she is the author of that article (Cyrus Dehkan) I fail to see how a fair and enjoyable debate can develop. My opponent's source made two points: 1. Time is relative, and time effect can be altered. 2. Scientists "feel" that it might be possible for an astronaut to leap far into the future. The above points do not prove that the future exists at this very moment. Point one merely proves that time can be altered and experienced differently depending on the speed you travel. In none of the experiments mentioned did an object actually travelled to the future. It demonstrated that it is possible for objects to have a different reference frame for time passed. The second point seems to be based on a "feeling" or assumption. There is currently no scientific evidence which proves that a leap far into the future is possible. It is speculative theories at most. My opponent then made the conclusion that if a person can leap from present to future, it means that the future does exist. Speculation again. Even if it was possible to make that leap into the future which future will you visit? Will there be multiple futures (based on free will)? If the possibility you visited never come to past because of some different action you or someone else took then you never visited the future but just experienced a possibility in the same way you experienced a dream. She further claimed that the argument is purely scientific and proved experimentally. I would like to see the references to such scientifically experiments since I failed to locate any such experiments by reputable sources.
The future does not exist and can therefore not be changed.

And welcome her to her first debate. My argument: My opponent has claimed that the future does not exist. And that therefore, there is no need to worry about the future since it cannot be changed. I would like to disagree. Stating that future does not exist is wrong. Scientists have actually predicted and made theories on how to travel into future. Einstein, in his theories of relativity, postulated that the measured time interval between two events, would depend on how fast the observer would be moving. This hypothesis has been proved by various methods. Tests have shown that travel by plane, increases a second by a few nanoseconds. In the laboratory, subatomic particles called muons, have been propelled at light speed in atomic generators, and have shown that their rate of decay slows dramatically in respect to their higher velocities. The author cites that cosmic rays, from outer space, can reach us on earth, because the resulting speed of these rays reduces their rate of decay, allowing them to reach us and be seen by us. Dramatic time warps start occurring near the speed of light. Mr. Davies gives an example of this phenomenon, by stating that if twins are born at the same time, and one travels at the speed of light for a year before returning to earth, the traveling twin would be one year old, while the earthbound twin could have aged 10 earth years. By traveling fast, namely the speed of light, time will slow down for us, while continuing at a normal pace elsewhere. Theoretically, calculations could be made to jump to a specific time and point in the future. It is also known that gravity slows down time as well. We know that time goes by faster in space than here on earth, because we are closer to the earth and the earth's gravitational pull. Subsequently, time in a submarine goes by even slower than those on land, for the same reason. Scientists have calculated that a neutron stars' gravitational pull is so strong, that it slows time down by thirty percent. Scientists feel that if an astronaut could zoom very close to a neutron star or black hole for that matter, he could leap far into the future. If a person can leap from present to future, then it means that Future does exist, right? This argument is purely scientific and proven experimentally. Source: astrophysics. suite101. com
The future does not exist and can therefore not be changed.

People are so often paralysed by fearful thoughts of the future, they make plans for the future, constantly think about the future and what would happen if..., trying to change their or others' future when in fact the future does not exist. The future will never be more than just a thought in our minds and can only ever be experienced as a present moment. Something that does not exist can not be changed. The future does not exist and can therefore not be changed.
Gift Returning

Hmm. Where to begin. I would wager that when the audience hears the word 'gift', the sense in which they most commonly conceive of it is as a token of sentimentality or appreciation - of something nice given by one person to another. We can therefore say that the common sense (that is, the sense which is taken by the majority) of the term 'gift' is that of a sentimental symbolism. So lets stick with the common sense of the term 'gift'. This isn't merely MY perception. Show a picture of an explosive device to 100 people and give them a multiple choice survey, one of the options being 'gift' one of the options being 'weapon' and I sense that the gift label would never be applied to it. Show them a picture of a box wrapped in wrapping paper with a bow on top, same multiple choices and they would perhaps invariably label that as a gift. Why capitalise the words common sense? It's not a noun. It's literally just the sense most commonly shared by people. That's all. "My opponent accepted my semantic that "a gift [is] sentimental symbolism." So, it may seem that my opponent does believe that thoughts are only meant to be assigned to material objects. However, he then states that the object is merely a "representation." Hm. Inconsistency." Perhaps you can explain the difference or inconsistency between calling something 'symbolism' and calling it a 'representation' ? I might be being dumb here but it seems to me that, far from being an inconsistency, they are actually synonymous in this regard. Perhaps you do have the ability to assign your own meaning to a gift. Of course you do. But what you can't do is reassign the meaning that is being transmitted by the person who is giving you the gift. That is not for you to do. So, the euphemism thing. If a euphemism is an attempt at trying to make something sound better than it actually is, then how is calling an explosive device a gift not a euphemism? By you doing so, by your attempts to subvert the meaning of the word gift to persuade the audience to give your fragile argument some credibility, you have employed a rhetorical device. Simple. Audience, I am in absolutely no doubt that you have been able to see how TheDarkMuffin has become embroiled in a quagmire of supposed logic to the detriment of his own argument. The subject matter, which he suggested, has taken a backseat to semantics and the most useless exercise in apparent reasoning. Get back on topic, TheDarkMuffin!
Gift Returning

Yes, yes TheDarkMuffin, very good. I believe you have wasted your words with the whole Reductio ad absurdum skit though. By your definition of a gift, sentimental symbolism is often the representation. This is the common understanding of what is meant by a gift. Calling an explosive device a gift is a rhetorical device. It is ironic. It is something you might find an action movie star saying in an action movie as he blows up the villain on the villains birthday. Used as a humorous euphemism. Lets stick with the common sense. A gift, such as a birthday gift, Christmas gift or any kind of gift of appreciation show that the giver has spent more than just money on the recipient. It shows that they have also spent thought in contemplation of the person. This is where the saying (oft used to make one feel better about receiving a crappy gift I must admit) "it's the thought that counts" comes from. And indeed it is the thought that counts. To know that one has occupied a sentimental place in another's mind is the truest and purest gift one can receive. To have someone consider you, and to consider the things that they know about you, and then to take their considerations and form a hypothesis around some thing that they hope you will appreciatively receive, and with all these considerations of your good self being underpinned and motivated in the mind of the giver by a desire to show you that you are appreciated and that they care about you? Well, the act of gift-giving is one of the most personal and touching things that humans do for each other. Do they sometimes get it woefully wrong? But of course. We are, after all, only human. But it's the thought that counts. The gift itself is of little consequence. It is the meaning that the physical gift transmits that contains the true value. So what of you who would return a gift? You are saying so much more than you might believe. You are inadvertently expressing ungratefulness. If the true value of a gift lies in its underlying meaning, then what underlying meaning can be taken from the rejection, return or exchange of a gift? It is an insult, whether conscious or not. It is saying "I know it is the thought that counts, but your thoughts are inadequate" It is saying "I know it is the thought that counts, but I do not care all that much for your thoughts or feelings. I would rather you had given me impersonal cash to spend as I choose" But that robs the experience of gift receiving of all its true value. Better to acknowledge and appreciate the considerations given to you with a grateful and noble acceptance than to slam the metaphorical door in the face of someone who had afforded you the time to occupy such an esteemed position in their mind. As stated, giving gifts is one of the most personal and touching things that humans do for each other. Rejecting, returning or exchanging gifts is one of the most thoughtless and unappreciative things you could do. Although no reciprocity may be expected, in doing so you have reciprocated. With an insult.