BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People over the Age of 55 should be put to sleep for population reduction

Thanks for joining the debate but my opponent is ignorant of the fact that we do not have enough resources to sustain a population over 6 billion people, never the less half a billion. We are destroying the environment 200 species are dying each day. We can not support this society will fall. The society is more important than one futile non laboring non productive petty citizen. Now I must ask the viewers do you believe that society should be sacrificed for the individual. The golden temple of are civilization which was built by all of humanity. Should we so ignorantly sacrifice that for the future of the structure of society and civilization. Now we could use the power and violence of the state and make a government program called universal reduction of human population in society where we could promote friendly ideas like "The Voluntary Human Extinction Act" http://www.vhemt.org.... Now we could do this but I don't want to pay taxes for it and also since the state is not voluntary we must over throw the state (coercive monopoly) and replace more efficient private company's which could reduce the population. Also people over 55 make up 42% of the elderly population. If something is voluntary it should be enforced with consent of the society but not a petty individual.
People over the Age of 55 should be put to sleep for population reduction

The human population of are planet is too high and unsustainable. I believe that for the sake of humanity we must take action. We need to use the government to help drastically reduce this high population. Once a person reaches the age where they are no longer productive to society which is normally when they retire age 55. They should be leave society in a peaceful non painful productive cooperative method. They will leave knowing that they are helping society and putting there duties to society over there self interest.
Mario is better than Sonic

Pro indeed correctly pointed out flaws in my points against Mario but I would like to present my views in this final round. Rather than actually trying to prove my point, I'm going to point out the mistakes and flaws in the Pro's argument. 1. Speed is the major thing which pushes Sonic forward when compared to Mario. Pro talks about how Mario can escape or avoid or rather compete against Sonic's speed. His point regarding being airborne is to some extent valid but in a combat, Sonic shall indeed triumph. It is basic physics that if an object with a relative high velocity hits another object, the damage can be destructive. The Pro states that he can "avoid" Sonic's attacks. I think that statement itself is a proof of the inaccuracy regarding Pro's notion. 2. I very clearly stated in my argument that I'm going to use the Power-ups point just because Pro had started it and all I meant by my counter was that his point is not actually true. Thus, I shall not proceed to write anymore about this point. 3. We are not having a villain versus villain criteria to determine which hero is more stronger as far as physical strength goes. But I'll just restate my point very briefly. How can you actually say that Bowser is a "several ton beast"? For all we know he might just be a weak creature having a durable shell with spikes on it and somehow manages to spew fire. But again, that's not the point of the argument. --- I would request all viewers and Pro to pardon me for my late and short submission which doesn't contain any references or videos. This argument has been solely written on the basis of my knowledge. It's been a great experience to debate on this topic especially because it was my first one. With that, I rest my case and hand over the debate to Pro. ---
Mario is better than Sonic

Sir, my view on the topic would be that Sonic is a very underrated character and being a hedgehog... He is relatively unknown. Everyone knows an Italian plumber who was made in Japan and is very popular among Americans. But my client needs more space and fame to be actually a super franchise. I agree that Sega has indeed worked on my previous point, and sonic the hedgehog is indeed a famous character but not much if compared to your client there. I would like to save my arguments for the next round. Thank you
Gay marriage should not be recognized by the state

What? Could you rebut my points next round please I'll expand A) federal government tax break are given to usually straight couples to promote nuclear families, keeping parents together, and allowing them to get good economic standing so they can have kids and such. The federal government would be forced to give gay couples tax breaks that they neither deserve nor require, as they don't use the regular family structure and can't produce kids. B) A family consists of a mother, father, kids, and the extended family. That is a family. A family is NOT a group of people who love or really like each other. You can't change the definition, unless youre talking about Charles manson's "family". C) Gay couples can get together, do whatever they want, and be a couple as much as they want. They can even get married anywhere in the US, except in some places the state won't recognize it. So they can do all this if they want to be a couple that bad. But, what they should not be able to do is get married. Marriage is a union between a man, woman, and usually the government. We are physically and mentally meant to be united, and that is undenyable. If we were not meant to be with the opposite sex, then why did we evolve into 2 sexes. Why are we not asexual? It's because it's best to be united and have people develop from 2 parents, differing in sex. D) children are best raised and developed in standard households. I am not claiming gay couples cannot raise kids without them being incompetent or anything. But kids are best developed and perform best when raised in straight households. It's a fact. Kids that are raised in one parent houses or gay houses are not raised naturally and in many cases even speak out against gay marriage [1]. It leads to sexual confusion. Many people will probably call me a bigot or homophobe or some word that conformists use to pressure people into accepting the more powerful scenario. But all this is just avoiding facts. I mean, we are meant to be raised my a mother and a father. Not 2 fathers or 2 mothers. I don't care if they want to do whatever they want sexually, but allowing 2 people of the same sex to get married is a sign of the degradation of our society. [1] http://m.cnsnews.com... I still haven't really gone in depth... I'm waiting for you to give a real response
Gay marriage should not be recognized by the state

Okay I thank my opponent for accepting the debate The premise of my argument is that the state should not accept gay marriage as official because - it forces them to give them tax breaks to gay couples, even though that defies the original purpose of tax breaks - it encourages non traditional families as normal or just the same - it is not marriage. This movement attempts to redefine a defined word. - it is best for a child to be raised in a standard household- with a mother and a father. While Im not saying it should be illegal to be gay or anything, I do believe "legalizing" gay marriage would be encouraging something that is not beneficial to society to happen, and normalize something that is not supposed to be "good" Please only state your premise and General argument first round, then 3rd we can start rebuting
Gay marriage should not be recognized by the state

Okay this will probably cause controversy so there are some rules: - no insulting during the debate - you may say an argument is invalid, but no declaring victory or claiming you win the round/argument. - no using emotional arguments.. Use mostly reason in arguments First round is acceptance only Last round will not be rebuttals. No "getting the last word in". Only summarize your argument will a paragraph as a conclusion. Hopefully this will be a good debate
Heavy Metal Music is better than Radio Pop/Hip Hop Music

I think in terms of comparing the quality of Heavy Metal to say Hip-Hop (which often is of a similar level, in terms of there is sometimes generic garbage, however often the music is creative and regular gems reveal themselves). So although I don't care for the less imaginative and well produced pieces of music released on the radio I think this kind of debate could only follow an argument-style format because like everything in life, there's quality and then there's American-produced quality. In terms of agreeing with you on that point, of course no one's going to defend what's classed as utter rubbish, generic (overused word here) and ‘fake' music, and so I will say that on a creative and imaginative level Hip-Hop is often on-par with Heavy Metal, however the genres are so utterly different that you can't possibly compare them both effectively.
Heavy Metal Music is better than Radio Pop/Hip Hop Music

Im not going to lie, you have basically the same view on it as me in terms of generality. I was looking for more of a debate comparing the styles, but it is clear that you think that mainstream pop and hip hop music are not as "quality" as the minority (heavy metal). So there is really nothing left to say here, you do not seem to be a fan of the mainstream radio music, so i have nothing to argue back. Thank you sir.
Heavy Metal Music is better than Radio Pop/Hip Hop Music

Simply you have to appreciate that the society we live in today cares only for the profit margin and level of coverage within the said country, and so where-as (for example) Heavy Metal may have a few hundred thousand fans throughout the United States, Radio Pop appeals to the now universal generation of mindless drones, who listen to the music not for quality, but for sustenance in an otherwise robotic life. In summery Hip-Hop and Radio Pop are generally better styles of music because of the consumer-base they're now trying to actually please, people who care for real music on the mainstream circuit are now the minority, and so these generic abominations are better styles of music from a modern-day, profit seeking, consumerist and similarly generic generation of people.
Should they make a ww2 from a German soldiers point of view

Hello.I shall analyze your points and make some new ones in this round."Not all German Soldiers were Nazis" Although not all German Soldiers were Nazis, they still acted on behalf of Hitlers orders and as so still comitted the atrocities the SS commited."Why can't we have the enemy as the French or Polish" The French and Polish were defeated in a short time and many mainstream games include German points of view (although not as prominent as the main characters) The French were defeated within a year of the declaration of war (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and the Polish almost a mere 6 months (http://en.wikipedia.org...)In many Video games the player is stereotypically the "good guy" defeating the "bad guy" and as such many people feel the same way about it in real life. Also in many Video Games, games developers want to cram as much amount of content into a game in a short amount of time and the games would not sell very well because of petitions and others from local populations because they are concerned about their children playing as "Nazis" in games. The Games would also not be interesting as the player would inevitably know that their side would be defeated unless the game was an alternate-history in which the Axis won, which would mean they wouldn't be as inclined to play compared to a game such as Call of Duty, where the player is learning a new storyline and not a historical one.
Should they make a ww2 from a German soldiers point of view

not all german soldiers were Nazis some were forced to join such as young men. and a coomon mistake people make is the german army (the Wehrmacht) were not Nazis they part of the military the Nazi ss were Nazis they were part of the government. and they should make a video game from a german soldiers point of view it gets annoying to see the enemy always as the germans why cant we have the enemy as the French or the polish
Should they make a ww2 from a German soldiers point of view

Hello, I accept your challenge. First off I would like to question what you mean "Should they make a ww2 from a German soldiers point of view" Does this mean that society should be actively producing media and films that shows that how the Germans (not neccessarily the axis) lived or do you mean that there should be more video games which actively show you playing as a Nazi? Please also reply with what "they" means.
Without God there is no objective basis for morality.

I'll make this one short and sweet since we have been over the points a couple of times nowMy opponent argues that moral values can vary with culture without depending on it.I shall leave it to you to decide whether this proposal has merit and simply ask the following question.In what sense can dependency exist if variation is not enough to demonstrate it?Correlation is not causation of course, but we are not arguing what 'causes' morals but merely what they are.An objective morality would have to have an objective toolset with which to analyse it. Any moral principle can of course be proposed, but my opponent appears to reserve the right to question any given moral principle based on his idea of 'wrongness'. I challenged him to provide me with a definition of this wrongness which he was unable to do.If I were to ask you to play a game with me, to which I will not tell you the rules (but inform you that they are there and give you some examples of things which are against said rules), then you could concievably form a strategy with which to play this game. However, since the rules are not well defined, there is not a well defined way to 'compare' these strategies. And my opponent concedes that there might even be rules that disagree no matter how we interpret the question. If this is not dependency, I do not know what is.I provide the following assessment of my opponents position. There is an objective basis of morality. The Null Set. This amounts to Nihilism, in which case there are no moral truths. He can simply push any particular moral decision into the 'relative' portion of his theory hoping that eventually he will yield a set that everyone agrees on by virtue of exluding as 'up to circumstance' everything that is not clear cut. Well, I imagine he will eventually end up with nothing. There will be nothing that everyone agrees on. Thus he has proven his resolution by rejecting the utility of the very thing he sought to defend, an objective moral code.Thank you for your attention and happy voting.
Without God there is no objective basis for morality.

I accept, and would like to propose the following definitions. Morality: A system of rules attempting to govern human behaviour for the purpose of advancing some measure of goodness in society. Basis: Set of fundamental principles from which a system of rules is derived. Objective: Existing in such a way so as to be independent of the individual human's judgement. In order for the question to make sense we have to assume that God's judgment is objective by His nature. I am not a theist but neither am I an atheist (I'm not sure of your definition of non-theism). My argument will be based not on the existence of God but rather the conditionality of the objectivity of a moral system on that existence. The burden of proof is on my opponent who is required to show that there is an objective basis for morality. If my opponent so desires I will attempt to provide an argument showing that no such basis can exist, though as a constructivist and functionalist I find non-existence proofs to be thoroughly unrewarding. I will accept any reasonable alterations my opponent wishes to offer to these terms in the next round.
Recycling Survey: This is Not a Debate, This is a interview and must be answer suffiecently

Alright, thanks for the questions, I will try to answer to the best of my abilities, 3. Do you think recycling is important to the planet & humans? Why? Is it important to you personally? I do think recycling is important to the planet and humans, because it allows us to reuse resources rather than throw them away and take more from the environment. I am not some sort of environment freak, but to reuse does seem better to me than to use more. It is important to me personally because I feel to only throw in trash will lead to a lack of resources and an unhealthy environment, this is a thing I can do that takes very little effort. 4. Do you do more than just recycle? Do you contribute to the community;Ex: Recycling Centers, Donation Centers, Advertising, return your recycling personally? I do go to donation centers and donate occasionally, and I go to the recycling center to drop of larger items and sometimes buy things as well.
Recycling Survey: This is Not a Debate, This is a interview and must be answer suffiecently

Sorry about forfeiting one of the round :P looks like i have to put more questions in one round here are the next questions for you to answer and thank you so much for participating this is a big help to my little brother! 3. Do you think recycling is important to the planet & humans? Why? Is it important to you personally? 4. Do you do more than just recycle? Do you contribute to the community;Ex: Recycling Centers, Donation Centers, Advertising, return your recycling personally?
Recycling Survey: This is Not a Debate, This is a interview and must be answer suffiecently

Though not a debate I will be happy to help. Rather than talk and talk I'll get on to the questions. 1.Do you categorize your recycling items? If Yes how many & how do you label them? I do categorize my recycling, the categorizations are cardboard, plastic, glass, metal, and paper. 2. Do you regularly recycle? If Yes how often? If No, why not? I do regularly recycle, so much that it has become a habit, when done with any of the things that I had mentioned in the previous debate I throw them in the proper bin. If not one of the categories we throw them away. I hope that my answers have helped, and if not then please tell me what else you were looking for so that I can help. I look forward to helping with whatever needs to be done. I hope I can help!
Recycling Survey: This is Not a Debate, This is a interview and must be answer suffiecently

Thank you to anyone out there willing enough to help my little brother with a interview thing of is, he needs to ask 10 random people about their opinions about recycling. So if your kind enough please answer the following questions: 1.Do you categorize your recycling items? If Yes how many & how do you label them? 2. Do you regularly recycle? If Yes how often? If No, why not? I will give other question as this Interview goes on. again thank you to anyone who accepts this interview. It means the WORLD to my brother.
Abortion

I never said that because something has the potential to become something that it is that thing, it cannot have the potential to become a baby because you cannot become what you already are. Just because a person is inside another doesn't mean that that person is now part of that person, neither does being dependant on said person. You live inside a huse, and your landlord owns that house, does your landlord own you because you are now a part of that house that is hers/his? You are also dependant on your job to live, are yu a part of your job, does your boss man own your soul somehow?
Abortion

A fetus most certainly is a part of a woman's body; it's inside her and depends on her to live. An undeveloped fetus cannot live or become a baby without using its mother's body. A fetus is NOT a baby; a fetus is a fetus. A baby is a baby. A fetus is NOT a baby. A fetus has the potential to BECOME a baby. A baby girl is NOT a 40-year-old woman. A baby girl is a baby girl. A baby girl has the POTENTIAL to become a 40-year-old woman. Just because something has the POTENTIAL to become something else does not mean it is the same thing. A fetus is NOT a baby.
Abortion

Except I never said nor thought that a woman had the right to murder an unsuspecting baby. A fetus is NOT a baby. A fetus has the POTENTIAL to BECOME a baby; however, as of now, it is a part of the woman's body. A woman does NOT have the right to murder an unsuspecting baby; however, she DOES have the right to do whatever she wants with her own body. Seeing as how the fetus is a part of the woman's body, she has a right to do whatever she wants to it.
That Michael Marvin is a baller

The Michael Marvin we are discussing has not had his identity revealed, so we will use the first result on http://google.com..., as this means he has the highest amount of searches, therefore would be the most relevant. So, according to High Peaks Venture Partners(1): Founder, Chairman Emeritus and former CEO of MapInfo, Corp. Michael Marvin is a founder and chairman emeritus and was the first CEO of MapInfo, Corp., a venture-backed software company that sells location and mapping intelligence solutions to corporations and public entities. Mike's leadership as chairman took the company through its successful NASDAQ IPO in 1994. Mike was also was a founding partner of Exponential Business Development Company, a venture fund dedicated to growing technology companies in Upstate New York which was successfully sold to Newtek (NASDAQ: NEWT). Mr. Marvin has previously served as the business director for Manufacturing and Technology Transfer at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, was a manager at Westinghouse and a programmer for the NASA Apollo project while at Sperry Univac. Mike has served on several public and private boards, including Vicarious Visions (sold to Activision: ATVI) and Geac, Inc. He currently serves on the advisory board of Bedford Funding, a $400M private equity firm focused on the software and IT services sectors. Mike earned a B.S. at the University of Maryland and an M.S. from the Graduate School of Industrial Administration at Carnegie-Mellon University. I would like to define Baller by Urban Dictionary(3): One whose status in society has been earned by one's possession of "game" (that is, proficiency at the game of life). Obviously, with what we can see of Michael Marvin, he is obviously a Baller. His status in society has been obtained through his possession of "game." He has risen through the ranks of many different companies, through their ranks, and obtained the highest of the high in social statuses: CEO of a successful company. So, through this, we can obviously see, that Michael Marvin, is in fact, a Baller. Vote Pro. (1) http://www.hpvp.com... (2)http://www.urbandictionary.com...