BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rand Paul Should Be The Next United States President

IntroductionWelcome! This is a debate on who should be the next president of the United States. This debate will be focused strictly on the policies between 2 major candidates/potential candidates. I will accept a debate with a supporter of a major candidate or potential candidate from either major party. Major Candidate/Potential Candidate will be defined as the politicians that are included in the following poll:http://www.publicpolicypolling.com...QualificationsSince I have been unable to find a debate for more than a month, I have removed all requirements to debate, except for the one below. I have had too many debates where my opponent does not end up finishing the debate. I ask that my opponent make sure that there is no predictable reason that he or she may not be able to complete every round in this debate.If you meet the criteria and would like to debate, go ahead and say so in the comments. I will accept whoever is most qualified within a few days. Guidelines*I have modified the original debate because I had a hard time finding someone willing to accept it.*There will be 5 rounds, 72 hour response period, and 10,000 character limit. Burden of proof is shared.1st round is for acceptance by my opponent and announcing what candidate he or she will be supporting. The next rounds will be focused on the following topics:2nd Round:-Economic Policy3rd Round: -Rebuttals for Round 2-Foreign Policy-National Secuity4th Round: -Rebuttals for Round 3-Social Policy5th Round:-Rebuttals for Round 4-ConclusionThe goal should be to convince the audience that, on balance, our candidate is superior to the other's candidate on policy, even if not superior on every major issue. This means that we can focus on specific issues that we find most important, while also taking into account and addressing the other subjects. I emphasize to the judges to vote not on who you would prefer be president, but on who made the best arguments in the debate.I look forward to having a great debate!
Purchasing chicken eggs from the supermarket endorses animal cruelty

I the contender do not agree to the motion. To define my thoughts and evidence first, Chickens can lay eggs whether they have been mating with a male or not and under those circumstances, eggs laid without any mating process is never fertilised thus in no way having a chick inside it. Further more animal cruelty is defined as the human infliction of suffering or harm upon any non-human animal, for purposes other than self-defense or survival. Source:. https://en.wikipedia.org... In the process of this, we are not eating any live animal in the egg thus there is no suffering or harm upon any type of animal and also for the fact that if we were to eat with something inside it still won't be defined as animal cruelty as we do it with the need of survival as the necessity of food forces us to. Thus there is no animal cruelty or any endorsement and I find that this motion is flawed. Thank you once agin for reading this argument and I await a argument, I am always open to receive POI and would love to improve to argument as this is my first debate
Purchasing chicken eggs from the supermarket endorses animal cruelty

I agree to the Wikipedia definition of animal cruelty. For simplicity sake I agree about the unfertilized egg. "if we were to eat with something inside it still won't be defined as animal cruelty as we do it with the need of survival as the necessity of food forces us to. T" Con I disagree on the ground that eating an egg is not imperative to human survival. There are many healthy vegans in the world. The only vitamin that is in question is vitamin b12. Which a supplement can be used. Next, b12 comes from bacteria, not animals. "Microorganisms are the only natural sources of the B12-derivatives" Biochem Soc Trans. 2005 Aug;33(Pt 4):806-10.Vitamin B12: chemistry and biochemistry.Kr"utler B1. As for protein beans have plenty of protein. Vitamin D can be gained through sunlight. Calcium is found in leafy greens like kale. There is no survival reason for humans to eat eggs in this era of abundance when vegan alternatives exist. Cage-free, organic, and free range eggs are not except. As seen in the links below. By purchasing eggs from the supermarket you are endorsing the suffering of mother hens and death of young roosters. "to approve, support, or sustain: " dictionary.com http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.peacefulprairie.org... http://humanemyth.org... http://dictionary.reference.com...
THW resurrect Albert Einstein instead of resurrecting the man who was about to cure cancer

Note: I will abbreviate "the man who was about to cure cancer" as TMWWATCC I will be arguing that it would be better to resurrect TMWWATCC than to resurrect Albert Einstein. I will keep this first round short by only covering the obvious reason why resurrecting TMWWATCC would be very good and wait for my opponent to give reasons why resurrecting Einstein would be good before I give rebuttals. Reason for resurrecting TMWWATCC 13% of all deaths are caused by cancer. [1] resurrecting TMWWATCC would allow him to finish his cure for cancer, which will prevent those 13% of future deaths. Preventing deaths is good, therefor it would be very good to resurrect TMWWATCC. I look forward to my opponent's response on why resurrecting Einstein would be better than preventing 13% of future deaths. Source: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Homosexuality

What is the difference between grace and law? Why is it not cool to run around killing people? As Deutoronomy clearly states, if said people have turned from God, the scripture commands you to kill them!If your hang-up is it's an old testament thing and you're a new testemant guy, how do you reconcile the fact that the entire concept of sin (clearly what you are now situating your allegedly objective morality upon) rests on a premise established as truth in Genesis 3 - which is in the old testament?
Homosexuality

So let’s see here. You are arguing that gay people should not be allowed to be perverts, but your religious convictions prevent you from punishing them for it. Looks like you are stuck. Catch 22. That is, unless you were expecting somebody else to execute the punishment of these people should they not, as you say, clean up their acts. But of course that is completely illogical because anyone willing to punish them are not acting (by your own admission) in a Christian manner, which means you’d be actively supporting the un-Christian behavior of others. You would literally be supporting sinners punishing other sinners for (wait for it...) sinning! Now that is an example of logic. Conclusion: I don't think you've really thought this through, and you haven't spent any time during this debate actually making a case for your argument. I do know this - either you're stuck at a dead end because your religious principles will allow you to judge but not to punish these gay perverts, or you're a hypocrite who wants to employ some third party to carry out the punishment for you so you can appear pious in the face of man. But since you know God knows what's up, you would only do this if you thought God wanted you to. Who knows, maybe you had never even thought about that. Good day.
Homosexuality

The difference, is that grace is a delayed judgement (please note, delayed, not abolished), to give them a chance to change, the law is the book of Leviticus. The law, "was an evil school teacher which taught you that you cannot achieve grace through works". I was referring to the law, not the rest of the old testament, genesis, exodus (except 21:7, I am referring to the history aspect), and the profits are completely credible. This does not, however, mean that it is not wrong, it is wrong, I will even cite religions where it is wrong Christianity Judaism Islam Buddhism Confucianism Sikhism Here are the ones where it is considered ok Roman paganism- the Romans cooked women alive by the way Taoism- they believe that there is no right or wrong Hinduism- By the way, India is where this the Aryan race nonsense and the cast system originated
Seat belt laws should not be enforced to anyone over 18.

In response to the question:" Why the government hasn't outlawed motorcycles? "Rebuttal: Entirely off-topic. We are discussing seat belts, not motorcycle safety.2. In response to:" Motorcycles should not be allowed. "Rebuttal: I can neither support or condemn the motorcycle. My burden of proof concerns seat belts.3. > In response to:" Minors are usually seated in the back, and if they are buckled up, then the point in negated. "Rebuttal: That argument assumes that all backseat passengers are minors. It also assumes that front-seat drivers don't eject into the rear of the vehicle. The point is not negated. In conclusion: My opponent has failed to support his burden of proof. Every "Pro" argument provided was opposed by a valid and source supported counter-argument. My opponent used absolutely none of his own sources.
Seat belt laws should not be enforced to anyone over 18.

1. These are very good points, although i have to ask why the government hasn't outlawed motorcycles if they are concerned for drivers on the rode. " In 2009, 58 out of every 100,000 registered motorcycles was involved in a fatal crash, compared with only 13 out of every 100,000 passenger cars. "[1] 2. See above. According to you, riding motorcycles should not be allowed. 3. Minors are usually seated in the back, and if they are buckled up, then the point is negated. That was a fun debate. Thanks for pointing out things other that the old human life is valuable argument.
Seat belt laws should not be enforced to anyone over 18.

Pro said: Seat belts only apply to the person wearing them. If I don't wear a seat belt, the worst possible thing that can happen is that I get injured. No-one else is affected by this. Rebuttal: 1 - A person who does not wear seat belts can be launched from the vehicle during collision, impacting with traffic or people. [1] [2] 2 - The unbuckled, ejected passenger will suffer debilitating injury or death, preventing them from assisting others involved in the crash. This can indirectly result in the death of other people, who could have been saved by you, if you had worn your seat belt. Point 1 refuted. Not wearing your seat belt does affect others. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pro said: Adults should be able to choose how they handle things that only affect them. For instance, if I smoke alone, on my property, I should be mature enough to realize the consequences. I am not harming anyone else, so I should have the right to choose. Rebuttal: Invalid argument. You share the road with other drivers. You don’t need to share your property. Not wearing your seat belt affects other people, as I have demonstrated. Point 2 refuted. Private property does not parallel municipal roadways. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pro said: Minors will still have to wear seat belts. I believe that children are not mature enough to make decisions like this, which can potentially harm them. Rebuttal: If you get into an accident without your seat belt, your body is weaponized into an incredibly deadly projectile. If your body is launched into another passenger, you could injure or kill them.Therefore, buckling your child only helps if you buckle up too. This goes back to my original point; not wearing your seat belt affects others. The source explains that an unbuckled passenger, ejected at 35 MPH, has a weight of 3.5 tons. That will effectively liquefy their body and crush whatever they collide with. [2] Point 3 refuted. Forcing minors to buckle up is a fractional solution. Everyone must be buckled to maximize the effectiveness of the safety restraints. [2] The source explainsthat 80% of car crash fatalities could be prevented if the rear seat passenger was buckled. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pro said: One point I want to clear up is that I am not endorsing that people should smokeand not wear seat belts, just that if they feel like they want to, they should have that right. Rebuttal: Public safety must be held as a priority over negligent freedoms. http://www.wlwt.com... [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [2]
Seat belt laws should not be enforced to anyone over 18.

1. Seat belts only apply to the person wearing them. If i don't wear a seat belt, the worst possible thing that can happen is that i get injured. No-one else is affected by this. 2. Adults should be able to choose how they handle things that only affect them. For instance, if i smoke alone, on my property, i should be mature enough to realize the consequences. I am not harming anyone else, so i should have the right to choose. 3. Minors will still have to wear seat belts. I believe that children are not mature enough to make decisions like this, that can potentially harm them. One point i want to clear up is that i am not endorsing that people should smoke and not wear seat belts, just that if they feel like they want to, they should have that right.
Traffic lights either need to be replaced with humans, or manually operated.

Now, to address his point for one last time… 1 – Time Efficiency Curses! My opponent has got me banged to rights on the small print there. Drat the man! However, the voters will note that the operatives in the control centres don't actually change each set of traffic lights manually, they just monitor the computers and the CCTV cameras. But I'm not going to be pedantic about that and no takey-backsies it is! Still, I may as well go on to negate his other arguments (and possibly take the opportunity to have a sly dig at the police en route). 2 - Anger Management My opponent reckons that posh police cars are not the norm. Well, that's true, the Ferraris, Bentley's, Porkers and Lambos, etc. are usually reserved for senior officers, but the rank and file still get to drive quite tasty motors. The last time I got a tug from the filth I was stopped by a BMW 5-series, a Vauxhall Omega and a couple of souped-up Volvos (although the court was told that they wouldn't have captured me if they hadn't had a police helicopter to co-ordinate the chase, so nothing to be too ashamed of). My opponent still thinks that the police using their "common sense" is a good thing. I disagree. On the aforementioned occasion, if had been clocked by a speed camera I would have got 3 points on my licence and a ï¿½60 fine. As it was, I was clocked by the polis who were sneakily hiding in front of a huge artic (semi) when I went past doing a ton thirty. The ensuing pursuit took us across three counties and committed massive police resources that could have been better employed catching real offenders like those drivers who just sit in the fast lane even though they aren't overtaking anything. The net result of this incident was that the police operation cost the taxpayers tens of thousands of pounds and it cost me my driving licence, so nobody was a winner. 3 – Saving Gas Again, my opponent persists that traffic cops are sensible while I insist that computers make more sensible decisions. We'll just have to agree to differ on this one and leave the voters to decide. 4 – Creating Jobs Well my point was that if all you want to do is create jobs for people with learning difficulties, directing traffic is not the only publicly funded role that the state could create for them. They could be employed as labourers building subways or as workmen constructing special lanes for busses and taxis on motorways (freeways) to ease traffic congestion – both projects that would save valuable fuel. 5 – Screaming For some reason, the network I am using at here at work doesn't allow me to view embedded youtube clips, but I assume it was very amusing. I'll watch it later at home if I'm not too wasted when I get in from the pub. In the meantime, here's one of my own. Let this be a lesson to drivers who hog the overtaking lanes. Ha-ha-ha-ha! . http://www.youtube.com... Thank you.
Traffic lights either need to be replaced with humans, or manually operated.

Many thanks to my opponent for continuing this debate, if nothing else he deserves to be awarded points for his dogged persistence in pursuing what is clearly a lost cause! Now, to revisit each point in turn: 1 – Time efficiency My opponent has little faith in the performance of computers. They are highly sophisticated these days and even benefit from artificial intelligence, as detailed in my R1 source. Indeed, most major cities have advanced control centers that monitor the traffic flow, such as this one in Shanghai: http://english.people.com.cn... …and this one in New Jersey: http://oldcomputers.net... These systems are able to make millions of calculations every second, whereas your average traffic cop is usually too preoccupied with deciding what to have for lunch to care about the traffic, as this still from a Paris CCTV camera shows: http://boldt.us... 2 – Anger Management So the police aren't on the fiddle then? So how come they drive cars like this then? http://www.crazynews.net... (No, Chief Inspector, I haven't been moonlighting as a pimp, honest) http://www.motorauthority.com... (The only place you'll find 911 on this police car is on the nameplate) http://cms.met.police.uk... http://images.cardomain.com... http://home.quicknet.nl... http://niimc.net... (etc.) 3 – Saving gas My opponent wrote "A smart traffic cop would allow that". I thought we had already established that there is no such thing as a smart traffic cop? ‘Nuff said? 4 – Creating Jobs My opponent referred us to a video clip of a German boy in the kitchen having a tantrum. As it happens, I speak German and some of the things he shouted were very rude. If this was a German website, my opponent would have been kicked out by now. But anyway, it isn't and he's still here, but I don't see the relevance of that piece of footage. At the end of the day, the value of a decent, integrated mass transit system is proved, as both my opponent and I know, living as we do in major world cities. Extending this form of public transport infrastructure to smaller cities would not only create jobs but ease congestion and (providing it was electrically powered as in New York and London) be beneficial to the environment. 5 – Screaming My opponent has got it all wrong. Drinking rum in the morning will impair his performance at work, inhibit his ability to keep up with the lads during the lunchtime session down the pub, and ultimately compromise his drive home because he will be so full of booze that he will have to stop the car every five minutes to relieve himself. Baileys Irish Whisky Cream is not only very soothing on the throat but is also relatively low in alcohol, it's the ideal morning beverage for irate commuters. In conclusion, traffic lights are frustrating, but that's life – get used to it. Most certainly, traffic cops can not be trusted – on any level. Thank you.
Oops... This is awkward!

1) If you were to be a technician of this site, then you would not work for Debate.org, instead, you would work for Juggle. Strange you would not name them as your employer. Once again casting shadow upon your claims that you are indeed a technician for this site.2) Aparently you have a physical location, owned by your employer, as implied when you state you have a desk. If you have a physical location, then your employer is stretching the law by allowing workers to arrive intoxicated, or allowing alchohol into the work area. Seems to make me doubt you even more.
Oops... This is awkward!

This still raises the question of the legitimacy of your employment. I still do not believe, and I hope the readers are not lead to believe, that a person who is under the effects of alcohol when working is truly an employee of this site. Not only that, but this is an employee who refuses to work, yet claims that his talents make him an artist.Con has not only contradicted himself, but I also have no idea what I am debating. I would like clarification, but I don't think it is possible from the instigator. After all, the full resolution is "Oops... This is awkward!" First off, what is "this?" The debate? A glitch? Which glitch? Second, what parameter allows one to believe something is indeed awkward? What measurement must we use to determine that it is indeed awkward? If Con means this debate, then it truly is awkward, as I have no clue what is going on.But hey, it's kinda fun in a weird way, I guess.
Oops... This is awkward!

True, true. I acknowledged that in my last point, however, forgot it in my begining. My apologies.Interesting. You state that you are "one of those technicians." My question to you is:1) Your profile differs. It states that your occupation is "Artist," and that you are "just on this thing while drinking beer." A technician certainly wouldn't do either of those things at the place at which he works.2) Your round one argument seemed to state that you were apologetic to the issue at hand. You state, "Sorry about that" twice in your argument, making me think that you do want to fix the problem. 3) You speak of "our technicians." If you are truely one of the technicians, why speak this way? It is as if I were to state, "Sorry about that. Our students have been notified," when speaking of myself. Not only is it unnatural, but it throws shadow upon your case, as it hinges upon your occupation and your reason to work. I await your response.
Oops... This is awkward!

I will negate my opponent's argument, seeing that I am Con.Hooray! This is gracefull!A calculated success has stopped.Unremorseful about that. Our unskilled workers have been ignored and should have this broken never.Be unwilling to be idle again now.Hooray! This is gracefull!A calculated success has stopped.Unremorseful about that. Our unskilled workers have been ignored and should have this broken never.Be unwilling to be idle again now.Now that I have sucessfully negated the resolution, I urge the readers to vote Pro. Strangely enough, Con has decided to uphold the resolution, while I have decided to deny it.