BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
heaven or hell your choice

My opponent has asked the question why people do not live for God after all he has done for us. She has stated that those who do not accept God should be tormented in hell for eternity. Nice to meet you too! What we have here is Christianity at its darkest. Now, in reality, this debate is in fact quite simple, as all I must say to win is that not everyone is Christian, not everyone believes what you do, and that is exactly why not everyone lives for God. However, I intend to seize this opportunity to turn this flop of a debate around and possibly into something of interest. So, why don't all people live for God? I will break this down as simply as possible, mostly because I do not expect to change my opponent's extremist views but to expose them to the facts. The Bible itself has said to seek the truth. Jesus said, "And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. " John 8: 32 This is a crucial line in the Bible. Not by blind belief, not by threatening people to convert, but by seeking the truth is how you find Jesus and through him, free yourself. Despite this, why is truth so taboo in extremist religions? The answer is in our repetitive history. People are scared of the truth, and in this situation particularly, the unknown. It is so much easier to force yourself to believe that believers are people of God and everyone else will be damned. However, it is beliefs like this that has forbidden seeking the truth throughout history. Beliefs like this where there was only one religion allowed in a country and any scientific advances that put these beliefs in question were forbidden, these beliefs are what caused much of the ugly bloody history. Martyrs, murders, the Crusades. .. so much innocent blood spilled out of fear. Fear of what? The truth. But now, we have entered a new age. Scholars, critics, physicists, philosophers, all have studied the Bible's words. We live in a world where knowledge is everywhere and we are entirely free to delve into it. Yet we still have people like my opponent who turn their back on all of this, and it is really quite sad. I have gone on longer than I expected, so I leave it at this. Some people live by God, just not the way the my opponent would like. And just because people do not worship God exactly how my opponent does, that does not mean they will be damned. That is the key to understanding extremists. They believe one way is the right way, however this is untrue. There are millions of ways to appreciate God or, for those who do not believe in God, to appreciate the world around you.
taco bell is a better restraunt than burger king

= Framework = Before beginning, I would like to offer a few observations. OBS 1: Burden of Proof (BOP)- As the Con in this debate, it is not my burden to prove that Burger king is better than Taco Bell, but simply to prove that Taco Bell is not better than Burger King. My opponent holds all BOP in this round to prove that Taco Bell is better than Burger King; If he is unable to prove that Taco Bell is better than Burger King in every instance of the word, the vote must go Con. As a brief road-map, I will be covering my opponent's arguments before presenting my own. = Pro Arguments = 1. Prices- Burger King has a dollar menu as well, so in all reality this argument isn't very valid. Further more the fact that my opponent can filled up at certain prices per restaurant doesn't warrant one restaurant's supremacy over the other, but instead simply says something to the effect of his personal preference. I would also like to point out that Taco Bell isn't only cheap in cost, but it's also cheap in quality. While their Tex-Mex flavors are certainly tasty, you get very little actual substance; it's mostly fillers. Beans, rice, cheese, sour cream, lettuce, tomatoes, and very little meat. You may be full right after eating a few of those .89 cent burritos, but it only lasts so long as those carbohydrates do. Whereas Burger King's products, on par, have more meat in them. And so while it may take a bit more (at least for my opponent) to fill up at BK, it's a fill that last longer. Also I would like to point out that I tend to spend more at Taco Bell than I do at Burger king. 2. Variety- Taco Bell only has Tex-Mex; There's actually very little variety among their various dishes. In fact can I point out that my opponent only listed three different examples? Burger King has Hamburgers, Chicken Nuggets, French Fries, Onion Rings, Milkshakes, and they even have a secret menu that includes tacos. Yes Tacos. Con- 1. Choice- The main facet of my case will be the issue of choice. When determining an issue of superiority neither price nor variety really matter in the first place. McDonalds sells a pretty good cup of joe for only about a buck, but that doesn't stop hipsters from spending all their allowance on Starbucks every month. At the end of it all neither can be better than the other because they're two completely different entities; there's no competition between burgers and tacos. It's all a matter of choice, an the winner will be different in each person's eyes. If I'm craving a burger and fries; Burger King. If I want a burrito and a tostada; Taco Bell. 2. Bacon- Burger King has bacon on their burgers. This argument is inherent, and warrants a straight seven vote. = Conclusion = + Burger King and Taco Bell are equal. + Taco Bell's food is all filler. + Bacon.
taco bell is a better restraunt than burger king

taco bell is obviously better then burger king and these are the reasons why. 1. prices for the prices taco bell offers I can get full for 5.00. if I go to burger king it takes 7.00 to fill me up. for the cheap price of five dollars I can get the five dollar box and a drink comes with that. there are so many cheap and affordable combo meals at taco bell 2.variety next taco bell is a better restaurant because there is a huge variety of meals and snacks. there is burritos,tostadas,quesidilla
Consuming Food From Genetically Modified Organisms Is Essential To Human Life

Also, thanks for agreeing to the definitions. Genetically modified organisms account for all of the biodiversity of life on Earth. They also make for essential food sources. *Digestion*There are perhaps few processes more essential to human life than digestion, because digestion is the sole means by which our cells metabolize energy from the outside world. During digestion, our bodies absorb essential compounds like amino acids, fats, and carbohydrates, all of which can only naturally come from genetically modified organisms. If metabolism is essential to human life, digestion is essential to metabolism, food is essential to digestion, and essential compounds in our food essentially come from genetically modified organisms, then genetically modified organisms are essential to human life. *Food Sources*While you may be able to get some sodium or potassium from rocks or dirt, you cannot get proteins, fats, and carbohydrates without food from genetically modified organisms. Think about what you ate today. Aside from the water, salts, and some minerals, everything you ingested today was derived directly or indirectly from genetically modified organisms, from the oatmeal in your breakfast to the chicken in your dinner. I challenge Con to find foods essential to human life that are NOT directly/indirectly derived from genetically modified organisms, excluding water, salts, and minerals. *Genetically Modified*All living organisms on Earth are genetically modified from their evolutionary ancestors, and these organisms are what compose our food, which is essential to human life. Therefore, I affirm. Con?
Consuming Food From Genetically Modified Organisms Is Essential To Human Life

Full ResolutionConsuming food from genetically modified organisms is essential to human life. ProHas 3 rounds, each with 10,000 characters and 3 days per post, to affirm the full resolution. ConAfter accepting 1st round, has 3 rounds, each with 10,000 characters and 3 days per post, to negate the full resolution. Definitionsconsuming - eating, drinking, ingesting, or absorbing. . https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...food - any nutritious substance that people eat or drink or absorb in order to maintain life and growth. . https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...from - indicating the raw material out of which something is manufactured. . https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...genetically - in a way that relates to genes or genetics. . https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...modified - transformed from its original anatomical form during development or evolution. . https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...organism - an individual animal, plant, or single-celled life form. . https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...essential - absolutely necessary or extremely important. . https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...human - relating to or characteristic of humankind. . https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...life - living things and their activity. . https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...*Death23, Uniferous, Hoppi, and any other voters who wish to sneak inadequate RFDs by the moderation to vote others down CANNOT vote on this debate.
In the game Destiny, year 1 things should be updated for year 2.

Ah yes, there seems to be a misunderstanding. I did not state that I did not want extreme hardcore gamers to get bad loot, but I just was afraid that loot that a hardcore gamer would be nerfed. How do I state this? Ok. Imagine there is a guy named John. He does VoG on hard mode and gets 247 kills and 46 assists. He gets a 160 hawk moon. Then year two comes. Sean does VoG on easy mode and gets a 320 Hawkmoon. Do you see this inequality? When things are updated, many things are degraded. I had a year one hawk moon. It got nerfed. Even the "o-mighty" Gjallahorn got nerfed. When things are updated, things are given a lower level of usefulness. For a real life-ish example, I bought all the Destiny expansions (The Dark Below, House of Wolves, and The Taken King) one by one, for an overall cost for the whole game of destiny at around $100. When The Taken King came out and a few months passed, you could get the whole thing for $60 USD. THE ORIGINAL PRICE! The price shouldn't be updated. VoG shouldn't be updated. YEAR TWO SHOULD NEVER OF HAPPENED! It should have just been a shrug for bungie. NOT A WHOLE GAME CHANGER. (Don't worry I'm not angry, I'm only trying to emphasize my arguments) Now if they do update the weapons, the whole point of updating to year two would be pointless. Year two has a evolution for destiny. To introduce new things and toss behind old things. Like tossing your old clothes to get new, more fitting clothes. Vote For Me! (Thanks for making this debate, bro. Good luck to you. This was fun.)
In the game Destiny, year 1 things should be updated for year 2.

Alright. Fair enough, PoE got a replacement. "when you say the Vault of Glass should be updated, I disagree. Like every other raid, it maintains it's same raid-ish feel. Can you imagine a pro player before year two beating the raid on hard solo? And then a year two dude doing on year two easy, and getting way better loot, and exp.?" - So what I'm getting from this is that the old raids shouldn't be updated because players can solo them. This is silly. First, the amount of players who can actually solo a raid is very low. And, it isn't even a bad thing that players can solo raids. That takes immense skill, and there are no downsides to the community if players can solo a raid. My opponents argument is basically this, "I don't want players who solo raids to get great rewards." This falls apart for 2 reasons. First, he doesn't explain how this is a bad thing, and secondly, his solution (making no one get good loot), hurts everyone in the community, as the money they spent on the game to do the raids is now useless, as they will get nothing good from the raid. Raids are hard. And when you give no good loot for a tough level, no one will do the level. This is a problem because now there is only 1 raid that gives good loot, and 2 that don't. First, this limits the amount of things you can do in the game. Secondly, the money you spent, expecting to do the raid and get good loot, is now wasted. This problem can easily be fixed. Update the loot to make it drop at year 2 values. Make Destiny great again!
In the game Destiny, year 1 things should be updated for year 2.

As the Taken King rolled out, The Prison of Elders did feature the Taken, and year two loot does come, however, only from the Level 42 PoE. This supports that, although The PoE was not updated, a two new ones were added. However, when you say the Vault of Glass should be updated, I disagree. Like every other raid, it maintains it's same raid-ish feel. Can you imagine a pro player before year two beating the raid on hard solo? And then a year two dude doing on year two easy, and getting way better loot, and exp. ? Back on with the Prison of Elders and the April update, the Challenge of Elders (Level 42 PoE) does give you exotic loot and is present to TTK and THoW. Here is video proof. (PLEASE DON'T REMOVE BECAUSE OF COPYRIGHT. ) Destiny: EXOTIC PRISON LOOT! Challenge of The Elders Sigil & Variks Reward Packages (April Update) by Unknown Player. This video is owned by him, not me.
In the game Destiny, year 1 things should be updated for year 2.

Destiny, is an addictive game, in my opinion, but I don't know if you mean they are buffed when year 2 comes. Of course some weapons can be upgraded to year two, and this could be a better solution. I mean, I know the year 1 Hawkmoon in year two only does 160 damage, but again, this makes it fun and challenging for some to go and fight to earn a buffed up Hawkmoon or Badjuju. Now, you might say that upgrading it is not fun, and in some ways I might agree. But I have to keep my ground. And yes, the weapons do get updated: they are either buffed or nerfed. There are year two versions of weapons however. In some ways it is disappointing, in some ways it is challenging.
In the game Destiny, year 1 things should be updated for year 2.

In Destiny, after the first year the game came out, all of the guns and armor in year one lost much of their attack and defense, meaning you took and did less damage. The 3 major year one events, Prison of Elders, Vault of Glass, and Crota's End, now only drop year one items, making them basically worthless. For example, exotic (the rarest class of items) year one stuff has lower attack and defense then year 2 uncommon stuff, which is easily found. So because you can't get good loot from year one Raids and Prison of Elders, few players play them. This can easily be fixed. Bungie, the developer, should edit these year one things to make them meaningful in year 2 and beyond. The expansion, "The Dark Below" is pointless, as the missions drop nothing, finishing all the missions gives you nothing, and the Raid gives you nothing. This is 20 dollars, which is now useless. Doing this would prolong the life of the game as people would have more content to beat. Instead of doing 2 Raids (Normal and hard mode), you could do 6! People would be worn out so much less. So my case is simple: Make year one levels be meaningful in year 2. Just follow standard rules. This is a less serious debate, so I'm not typing them up.
Gun Control

1:First I would like to say sorry for not citing my sources, and I will post citations for it after my argument. The Second Amendment or the Constitution says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms..." This is pretty much straight forward, It gives us, the people, the right to keep and bear arms." This does not mean the state, this does not mean the government, it means the people, the ordinary citizens. I believe in the right to bear arms to protect us government tyranny. I believe that in the next 75 to 100 years, we may be faced with government tyranny. Imagine if the Jews in WWII had any firearms of any sorts, they would have at least the chance to fight back. 2:Reasonable gun control reduces gun violence, but not all violence You were talking about how in 2014, the United States saw 33,736 firearm deaths. Not many of those were actual murders. The total gun suicides in 2014 was 21,334.(1) If you do some quick math, that leaves only 12,402 murders/accidents. Since 1994 there has been a significant increase in the consumption of firearms , yet the homicide rate has been dropping, from 7.0 per 100,000 to 3.6 per 100,000.(2) Going back on your deterring crime, if we can eliminate a crime by 40%, then why would we not take it. Australia after its gun ban had not seen any drop in crime rate. Australia in 2006, 16.3% of all homicides were firearm homicides, that is the most it had ever been. It also saw more violent crimes. In the period of 1995 to 2007, Australia saw a 49.2% rise in assault, a 6.2% rise in robbery, and a 29.9% rise in sexual assault.(3) We can see from the statistics above that gun control may only reduce gun violence, but that will most likely NOT stop a determined criminal. Gun control is only taking away our guns, our freedom from the government. It is not helping reduce crime rate, it is not helping us reduce homicide rate, and it is not helping us in general. I will agree with you though that I do believe that there should be background checks and mental health screening. Gun control is completely unnecessary to the health and benefit of the public. Sites: 1)https://www.thetrace.org... 2)https://en.wikipedia.org... 3)http://www.ncpa.org... For previous argument: 1)http://www.nij.gov... 2) (I can't remember the other sites but it was a terrible argument anyways)
Gun Control

OK, so, our second amendment states that we have a right to keep and bear arms. It also states that it this right shall not be infringed upon. The reason our Founding fathers have made this law was not intended for self defense, not intended for hunting and gathering food, it was to protect against government tyranny. This means that we should be able to protect ourselves from our own government if it goes berserk and corrupt. I understand, that some gun control only wants the ban of assault weapons, but here is the truth. Far more people are killed by handgubns than assault rifles. In 2012, only 332 people were murdered by any kind of rifle. And actual firearm crimes account for a very small percentage. In fact , most firearm deaths are suicides. The National Institute of Justice has been researching this for years and a study from 1993 to 2011 shows that gun violence only accounts for at most, 8 percent of all violent crimes. ¨But assault weapons are the weapons of choice of mass shooters¨, one might say, criminalist James Alan Fox estimates that there are less than 100 victims per year related to these events. But their deaths account for less that one percent of all homicides.Gun control does not help us, because most criminals get their guns through illegal means. This includes stealing and the blackmarket.
Homework should be banned

As this is the last round of the debate, I will give a few more points to prove that homework should not be banned. Some of the reasons why homework is important are; it helps for more rapid progress in learning, it can form an important part in the pupil"s notes, it helps in long term research, and it is good for introverts who may be unable to ask questions in class. The purpose of homework is to help you learn and practice what was taught in class or to gain information by reading and answering questions. As you can definitely see from the above mentioned points, home work is a very important part of our studies. Take myself for an example; I am a introvert but I have managed to convey my knowledge through homework. As it has been very useful for me, I do not see why it cannot do the same for others too. In addition to helping you practice what you have studied or learned at school, homework prepares and helps you to use resources such as encyclopedias, books and the Internet which help you to find information for your homework/research projects. When you complete homework independently, you actually become independent. Homework is a sense of independence, responsibility and self discipline and it can bring home and school closer together. As we know, homework is not to be done and forgotten about. It has a deadline: this will teach you that completing a task on time is very important. This thing called homework also gives your parents a greater opportunity to participate in your education. Now, don"t you think that the reward is the practice that you get (which will allow you to do well)? Homework is indeed a good practice for success in life, so be sure to complete it and turn it in on time. After reading all these points, I hope that you will agree with me that homework is very important and thus should not be banned. With that, I rest my case.
Homework should be banned

Homework is important as it prepares students for the real world. Although yes, home work does add pressure on students, it is not too much pressure but is instead a necessary pressure to ensure that students do not slack off their work. Even if teachers do not check the homework carefully, I am sure that after they mark it they will know a students weakness. Not only that parents will also actively check their child's homework to ensure him/her is performing in school. Whether students do the homework themselves or with the help of others, it all boils down to this-Is it proper conduct to let others do your work? Will it tug on your conscience afterwards? This is a matter of personal integrity and is a test of student's decision making. After all, as I stated in the first line, homework is truly here to prepare students for the real world.
Gun control laws

As you can probably guess by the username and vibrant profile picture - I am a Briton. In the United Kingdom, most guns are banned and to own a hunting rifle one requires a gun licence which is extremely difficult to earn and requires extensive background checks. In the United States, however, the story is very different. In the majority of US states, you do not require a permit or extensive background checks to purchase a firearm. Unless you are in a REALLY blue state (like Connecticut, Massachussets, etc) you can, quite literally, stroll into a shop and purchase a gun. All you need to do is provide ID. That's it. You can buy a gun in the same way as you could by a bottle of wine. This is ridiculous.The figures never lie. In a country such as the UK where guns are not permitted, gun crime is lower. In the US (I belive these figures are for last year (Source: FBI)), there were 13,000 gun murders. Thirteen thousand people killed by guns. In the United Kingdom: 35 gun murders. That is an astonishing difference. But, obviously, there is a difference in population. So if we times the UK stat by 5.3 to scale it up to the US population, we get 185 gun murders. The difference is still massive, there is no disputing that.However, many who support reckless gun ownership in the US say that, in Britain, other forms of violent crime (particularly stabbings) are even higher than other forms of violent crime in the US. Only...this isn't true. (Stats for UK crime: GOV.UK)When populations are scaled up:US: 1,800 lethal stabbingsUK: 1,060 lethal stabbingsCrime rate in Britain is much lower than in the US. And gun crime is IMMENSLEY lower.Sandy Hook is a tragic case of when your silly little constitution actually fails the people whose rights it aims to 'protect'. So what - some stupid sheet of paper says you can own a gun. Sandy Hook, Columbine, Oikos, Santa Monica. This has got to stop! When your right to own a gun infringes on others' right to life and to LIVE, then it's gone too far.I completely agree with you, this bill is stupid and will do nothing for America. The bill needs to be tougher, it needs to include not just those guns BUT ALL GUNS. For the sake of Americans across your country, for the sake of your own children: ban guns. There are other ways to defend yourself, but desperately clinging onto this mediaeval obsession you have with owning lethal weapons is inappropriate for this day and age.US Shootings must stop. Full stop.