BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
we have no rights, only privelages

I hope we will be able to debate this. Until my opponent responds, I will not waste my time on a lengthy argument. Here is a right granted by the Constitution of the United States of America: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the RIGHT of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The former statement is the first amendment to the United States' Constitution. Here we can see that citizens have the right to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The resolution is negated.
we have no rights, only privelages

or atleast i woudn't admit that i allready have , but none the less lets begin. This debate is to discuss wether or not our given "rights" such as the right to free speech or the right to live safetly are really. .. , rights. By accepting this debate my opponent affirms the definition of rights to constitute the following: Rights are freedomes which are provided to individuals who fall under, in some form, to be members of thier society. (Humans, have the (Right) to free speech in our (human) society). In this sence what the individual is left with is not a right at all, the individual is left with a privelage( privelage is a freedome provided to an individualo provided me meets the content of the priveleage provider) . He is only given a certain. . "freedome" because he falls under a category which to the society (or atleast those who run the society) meets standards of content. The moment he was to leave that condition, or in some cases the moment the society was to change that condition, the privelage willl no longer hold.
There is no evidence for god

Pro has not responded to any of the questions I posed towards him/her. None of the arguments I presented were objected to. I stated when presenting the arguments that Pro needed to first identify the premise that he/she took issue with so that we could discuss these controversial premises in the debate. Pro chose to not respond at all. Furthermore, Pro has said nothing in response to what I noted about subjective evidence (i. e. personal testimony. ) As Pro did not specify at the beginning of this debate that the evidence needed to be objective, it seems to me that personal experience is good evidence for the existence of God. This, and the objective arguments I presented at the beginning of the debate, have not been responded to by Pro. I think we can conclude that there is at the very least one good piece of evidence for the existence of God. It follows from this conclusion that Pro has been unable to hold his/her assertion that there is not a single piece of evidence for God's existence.
There is no evidence for god

Thanks, Pro.1. Rebuttal"I don't see it as necessary to refute any of the arguments"That's awfully convenient for you. In each of the five arguments I presented, I asked for a response from Pro. No response has been given to four of these five arguments. Pro either agrees with the arguments, or else is not able to reason against them. In either case, the arguments hold sound until Pro refutes each of them."The belief here that nothing can exist without god shows that everything that exists does so because of god. This would mean that everything that exists is evidence for god, which renders the term "evidence" meaningless in this context because we have nothing to contrast against - there is nothing in existence you could point to that can't be evidence for god. So to clarify, there is no evidence for god because here the term "evidence" becomes void of meaning."Pro correctly states that everything that exists is evidence for God. The fact that anything exists as opposed to nothing serves as evidence for God, as demonstrated by the third argument I presented. I'm not sure how or why Pro decides to make the jump from "everything that exists is evidence for God" to "evidence becomes void of meaning." This is an unwarranted claim. Evidence has a definition: "something which shows that something else exists or is true" [1]. This definition is not in conflict with what we are discussing. The fact that existence itself serves as evidence for God does not somehow make the word evidence "void of meaning." 2. Burden of Proof Pro has not provided a single argument to support his claim that "There is no evidence for God." As such, the burden of proof has not been carried by Pro thus far. 3. Arguments in Favor of God's ExistenceIn the opening round I presented five arguments in favor of the existence of God. Four of these arguments went untouched by Pro. The argument that Pro did respond to was addressed above (in the section labeled "Rebuttal.") None of the arguments that I presented have been knocked down. Each remains sound and is therefore evidence for God's existence.4. SummaryPro has not carried the burden of proof for his claim that "There is no evidence for God." No arguments have been given to support this assertion, whereas five arguments have been given in favor of the existence of God. As it stands, we can conclude that there is evidence for God.Sources:http://www.merriam-webster.com...
There is no evidence for god

I don't see it as necessary to refute any of the arguments put forward by Willaim Lane Craig Con due to irrelevance, lack of evidential back up and mere assertion. However, this argument:"God is the best explanation for why there is anything at all rather than nothing. P1) Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or due to an external cause. P2) If the universe has an explanation for its existence, that explanation is God. P3) The universe exists. C1) Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from P1, P3)C2) Therefore, the explanation of the universe"s existence is God (from P2, C1)"goes someway to making my argument for me. The belief here that nothing can exist without god shows that everything that exists does so because of god. This would mean that everything that exists is evidence for god, which renders the term "evidence" meaningless in this context because we have nothing to contrast against - there is nothing in existence you could point to that can't be evidence for god. So to clarify, there is no evidence for god because here the term "evidence" becomes void of meaning. To refute this, Con would have to point to something in existence that they believe can't be evidence for god, but that would also mean dropping their argument above.
A political candidate's demographic should not affect the way one votes.

This US election is an exciting one, with the Democrats' chosen heir being challenged and the GOP completly divided amongst a few candidates. But as I;ve watching events unfold on the news I've been seeing the journalists paying a lot of attention the candidates demogrpahics. Is the United States ready for a woman president? How will Romney's Mormonism play along with the GOP's base? Who would have believed a black man (though Obama is actually just as white as he is black) would ever run for the presidency? Is McCain too old? Is Huckabee being a Baptist helping him? Is America due for its 2nd Catholic prez? Do we really want another man in charge?These and other annyoing questions the press seen intent on fauning over. But why? Isn't the point of the Americans political deliberations to choose a leadership candidate that has good policy voters agree with, honour, effective leadership skills or other practical things? Does it really matter if what colour their skin is or their age, so long as they are effective leaders that connote the will of the people? I look forward to a rebuttal from my opponent.
The main goal of education is employment

I am going to base my arguments on two interpretations of your argument that may be inaccurate. If they are, please inform me as my argument will most likely change. 1. By main goal, you mean what people should be using education for. 2. By education, you mean education in general, not specifically college degrees, etc. I would argue that many people have a variety of motivations for education: bettering their personal life, enjoyment, etc, and that these are all legitimate and equally meaningful goals to employment.
JFK Assassination

JFK was assassinated by the ghost of Doc Holliday.I will be taking the affirmative, my opponent the negative.I attempted this debate once before, but my oponent forfeited after the first round. I will probably be bringing my previous arguments forward. Thank you.Definitions:JFK - John Fitzgerald Kennedy. The 36th President of the United States of America.Assassinated - The murder of a prominent person or political figure by surprise attack.Ghost - Soul or spirit of a dead person or animal that can appear, in visible form or other manifestation, to the living.Doc Holliday - John Henry "Doc" Holliday. An American gambler, gunfighter, and dentist of the American Old West who is usually remembered for his friendship with Wyatt Earp and his involvement in the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral.Rules:There really won't be any formal rules. I ask is that we both remain polite to one another. No other conspiracy theories shall be brought into this discuss, as all the conspiracy theories are false and we're here to argue the facts. I will be arguing for the affirmative, you will be arguing for the negative. And in such a case that either of us forfeit it is highly probable that we are getting too close to the truth and were assassinated for it. However, since it would be impractical and infeasible to require the opponent to investigate the cause of our disappearance, if either party forfeits they automatically lose the debate, and the disappearing party's side should never be brought up again.I will keep this debate short in order to keep it on track.1st round: Acceptance2nd round: Present arguments and rebuttals3rd round: Rebuttals and closing statements.Have fun, and to the victor goes the spoils.
JFK Assassination

1a) What does this have to do with JFK? It's background information on Doc Holliday. The man (as a ghost) that I said killed JFK. Therefore it's relevant.1b) Doc Holiday lived before JFK even existed.THIS is not relevant. I stated that JFK was killed by the GHOST of Doc Holliday. As a ghost, time is irrelavant.2) When you die, your soul is not "Bound" to this earth, you face judgment heaven or hell based on your faith and trust in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.I didn't know you were a ghost expert. Con's statement has never been established during thedebate and should thus be stricken from the record! Otherwise, he would need to backup those claims. In addition, the dead are not judged until the Great White Throne Judgement, in Christian theology.3) He wasn't sleeping, nor was he sluggish. He was shot in the back by the first bullet, that's why he puts his hands up on his neck because the bullet exited his throat area, and he wasin pain. His wife wasn't waking him up, she was making sure he was okay.From the article you linked: "...with the gunshot wound to the neck/back area superficial and not fatal..."Whether he was shot in the neck or not is not important because if he was, it was not fatal, and that's notthe shot that killed him. As you may very well know, Oswald was a poor shot. [1] So it makes sense thathe would not have dealt a killing blow. On the other hand, Doc Holliday was an excellant shot.The shotthat killed him came after he dozed off for a moment and Doc Holliday was waiting for him!I think from the evidence it's very clear. Doc Holliday assissinated J.F.K.[1] http://www.giljesus.com...
JFK Assassination

"Among other things Doc Holliday was a gunfighter and a dentist. In 1873, Holliday opened a dental office in Dallas, Texas. The dental office was located on Elm Street. The very same Elm Street that J.F.K. was assassinated on. In fact, Hollidayâ€™s office was mere blocks from where the murder took place. Holliday had a habit of getting into gun fights. At one point he was shot by a fellow gambler and reported dead in the Dallas Weekly Herald. But he wasnâ€™t dead. Not yet.[2]"1) What does this have to do with JFK? Doc Holiday lived before JFK even existed. 2) When you die, your soul is not "Bound" to this earth, you face judgment heaven or hell based on your faith and trust in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior."If you watch closely on the Zapruder film, moments before J.F.K.’s head was shot, he appears sluggish. His is drooping down and it appears he’s nodded off. Not surprising, the president is a very busy man and probably doesn’t get a lot of rest. I submit to you that just before he gets shot, J.F.K dozed off, and right as his wife goes to wake him (you can see in the video she leans over to him) his head is blown off; killed, by none other than the Dream Master himself, Doc Holliday."He wasn't sleeping, nor was he sluggish. He was shot in the back by the first bullet, that's why he puts his hands up on his neck because the bullet exited his throat area, and he was in pain. His wife wasn't waking him up, she was making sure he was okay.(Remember he was shot TWICE) http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com...;
JFK Assassination

I trust a lot of good information will come out of this debate not previously known to the general public. I hope that my current opponent does not suffer the same mysterious fate as my last opponent. J. F. K was killed in 1963 in Dallas, Texas. The motorcade turned left from Houston Street onto Elm Street, driving through Dealey Plaza, where the president was assassinated. The street on which the president was killed will become important later. [1] Among other things Doc Holliday was a gunfighter and a dentist. In 1873, Holliday opened a dental office in Dallas, Texas. The dental office was located on Elm Street. The very same Elm Street that J. F. K. was assassinated on. In fact, Holliday’s office was mere blocks from where the murder took place. Holliday had a habit of getting into gun fights. At one point he was shot by a fellow gambler and reported dead in the Dallas Weekly Herald. But he wasn’t dead. Not yet. [2] Have you ever seen The Nightmare on Elm Street before? Did you know the movie was based on actual events? There have been stories all throughout the world about people who have nightmares and then are found dead. You didn’t realize that did you? Wes Craven got the name of the street right. It was the name of the killer he got wrong. [3][4] If you watch closely on the Zapruder film, moments before J. F. K. ’s head was shot, he appears sluggish. His is drooping down and it appears he’s nodded off. Not surprising, the president is a very busy man and probably doesn’t get a lot of rest. I submit to you that just before he gets shot, J. F. K dozed off, and right as his wife goes to wake him (you can see in the video she leans over to him) his head is blown off; killed, by none other than the Dream Master himself, Doc Holliday. I rest my case. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://mytruestory.com... [4] . http://www.forteantimes.com... . http://www.youtube.com...
Abortion should be Legalized within the US

One of the main problems today is not how woman are financially stable but the wage gaps between the middle and poor class that have effected responsibility in sex. It is shown that the United States has one of the top 5 highest abortions. This is caused from lack of sex education in states like Kansas, one of the surveys you cited. The poor also seem to have a hard time getting proper birth control to prevent abortion. The murder of a child shouldn't be held in the hands of an irresponsible party. Whether it be financial issues. A life is still a life. No matter what form or stage it is in. http://www.cdc.gov...
Abortion should be Legalized within the US

Having a child could be detrimental to a family's financial health, especially if the parent is single. In a study, 38% of woman claimed that,"The most common sub-reason given was that the woman could not afford a baby now because she was unmarried(42%). Thirty-eight percent indicated that having a baby would interfere with their education, and the same proportion said it would interfere with their employment. In a related vein, 34% said they could not afford a child because they were students or were planning to study."(1) Also having a child interferes with the adults education and their ability to become employed due to fulfilling the needs of the child. Sources: (1) https://www.guttmacher.org...
Abortion should be Legalized within the US

51,000 of pregnant women in 2001 used abortion as a birth control.1/2 of all unintended pregnancies end in an abortion.'Forty-eight percent of women aged 15-44 in 1994 had had at least one unplanned pregnancy sometime in their lives; 28% had had one or more unplanned births, 30% had had one or more abortions and 11% had had both.'The proportion of unplanned pregnancies that ended in abortion increased among women aged 20 and older, but decreased among teenagers, who are now more likely than older women to continue their unplanned pregnancies. The unintended pregnancy rate was highest among women who were aged 18-24, unmarried, low-income, black or Hispanic.')1 1)https://www.guttmacher.org...
Abortion should be Legalized within the US

Abortion does not affect a women's mental health. A study by C. Everett Koop, a general surgeon, stated that the subjects he tested after having an abortion showed no signs of having any mental issues after the incident.(1) In fact, 76% of women in another study reported feeling relief while only 7% felt sadness or guilt. Abortion studies revealed that while the women feel mixed emotions at the time of the incident, it poses no psychological threat to a woman's mind.(2) Sources: (1) https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov... (2) http://155.97.32.9/~bbenham/Phil%207570%20Website/aAdler1990.pdf Women have abortions for many reasons. One of them could be that they were a victim of rape or incest. The woman in question could be ovulating at the time and gets raped. 284,000 Americans 12 years and older are victims of rape in a one year study.(3) The woman should not have to carry the child of the rapist if they do not want to. The child will also have some difficulty in life as well. The child will most likely never know the father and the father will never support either mother or child. The woman could be financially burdened because of the child, until the mother will be unable to care for the child. Abortion takes away a fetus, not a full term pregnancy. Sources: (3) https://rainn.org...
Abortion should be Legalized within the US

Women who aborted their first pregnancy were 3.9 times more likely to engage in subsequent drug or alcohol abuse than those who have never had an abortion.Researchers who have studied substance abuse have long reported that women are more likely than men to date the onset of alcohol or drug abuse to a certain stressful event or a "definite life situation."1 It is not surprising, therefore, that numerous studies have found a direct correlation between substance abuse and abortion. 60% of women admitted to increased alcohol because of their abortion. Only 10% stated they had already engaged in substance abuse prior to their abortions. http://afterabortion.org... http://www.contracept.org...
Abortion should be Legalized within the US

Abortion is actually not linked to breast cancer. A study was made with 350 Serbian women that tested the amount of increased hormones that contribute to breast cancer. After having an abortion, the women were tested for hormone increase and it was found that no increase of risk could be led to breast cancer.(1) Breast Cancer is actually increased once the after a full time pregnancy or once the birth was completed. The different types of abortion, such as spontaneous or induced, have been shown that there is no risk for breast cancer. Also abortion does not cause infertility, which is the number one worry for those who wish to have kids in the future and is painless in both medically and aspiration. (2) The amount of major complications in dealing with abortion is less than 1%. (3) Sources: (1) http://www.cancer.org... (2) http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org... (3) http://www.prochoicewisconsin.org... Abortion is not only used for birth control reasons. The child in question may have mental/physical health issues that doctors can figure out before the birth of a child. The five most common genetic disorders are Autism, ADHD, bipolar disorder, depression, and schizophrenia.(4) The chances of the child genetically inheriting certain mental/physical diseases are 1 out of 4 or 25% depending on the family's gene pool. Past relatives or other family members may have the gene which could easily be passed onto the parents of the child and fall to the child.(5) (4) http://www.nimh.nih.gov... (5) https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...
Abortion should be Legalized within the US

Nations that wish to keep their population under control by at least 1% can not do so unless abortion is put into effect. "This observational study, based on the experience of 116 of the world's largest countries, supports the contention that abortion is essential to any national population growth control effort. The principal findings are: Except for a few countries with ageing populations and very high contraceptive prevalence rates, developed countries will need to maintain abortion rates generally in the range of 201-500 abortions per 1000 live births if they are to maintain growth rates at levels below 1%."(1) Overpopulation can lead to an unstable economy, both fiscally and environmentally. A few consequences of overpopulation is food shortages, poverty, pollution, lack of educational services etc. Environmentally the Earth cannot handle the amount of CO2 being pumped into the air due to the numerous amount of vehicles and transportation needed with that many humans.(2) Sources: (1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... (2) http://www.conserve-energy-future.com... Additionally abortion has been proven to reduce the amount of criminal activity. A study was shown that the 1990's the criminal rates had dropped once abortion was legalized in the 1970's. A hypothesis was formed stating," The idea is that the is the reduced frequency of crime among children who were not born would have been those in disproportionately likely to grow up in poverty and on welfare with a young and poorly educated single parent. Because these factors are known to breed crime, the children not born would have been prime candidates be criminals 15 to 25 years later." (3) The study found that out of the 1000 abortions there were 380 fewer property crimes with 50 less violent crimes.(3) Sources: (3) http://scholar.harvard.edu...
Abortion should be Legalized within the US

The killing of a soon to be human being is murder,murder of a life that hasn't gotten a chance to become something in life.Unborn babies are considered human beings by the U.S Government.The Unborn Victims Of Violence Act Proves that if a baby is killed in the womb it's an act of violence which is breaking the Act of Unborn Victims therefor its murder https://www.congress.gov...