BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God is Real

There has been a lot of evidence that proves the bible is not only unreliable, but also internally inconsistent (see http://bibviz.com...).The God of the bible has characteristics that make it logically inconsistent too. For example God is referred in the Bible as Almighty, meaning, according to scholars that he is omnipotent, yet he cannot lie (Titus 1:2). And yet in Jeremiah 20:7, he complains to be deceived by God.The latest edits of Jeremiah are dated in the 2nd century BC, this means that the prophecy could have be written well after it happened. Although it was written probably by Deuteronomist in the 6th century BC because of their greater enphasis on the prophetic aspect of the book.So of course some prophecies in the Bible are not based on chance, they are based on facts happened in the past. So they are not real prophecies are they?All this really does nothing to prove the truth of the theme of the debate "God is real" but I wanted to get it out of the way anyways.So basically I have no argument for this round because no evidence for the claim was presented.
God is Real

There has been a lot of evidence that proves the reliability of the bible. First, although this does not prove other religions wrong, it is more logical to be an Agnostic than an Atheist. The fine-tuning theory has been debunked, yet there is still more to it. You can assume that we are just a lucky species that happened to be on the right planet for our needs, but to say that that is the only factor of this life that must have been really dependent on luck is unreasonable. Every animal on this Earth happens to reproduce, and in the same way. Every animal also needs to breathe, usually in a universe based on luck that sort of thing wouldn't happen. And, finally, I will conclude this at the excretory system which is very similar for every animal. Another thing is that there have been many Christian prophecies that have happened just as expected. For example: "...This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years. But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation, the land of the Babylonians, for their guilt," declares the Lord, "and will make it desolate forever." There are many more of these, and I don't want to fill my argument with all of them, but it is certainly unlikely for all of this to be based on chance. Good luck.
the government should mandate that all vehicals be powered by an alternativr fule souce by 2040

On behalf of the members of this site, I should like to welcome my opponent to debate.org and thank him for addressing this important issue. Unfortunately, my opponent was not explicit as to the nature of his objections so I have, therefore, been obliged to conclude that he either believes that alternative fuels are not associated with glamorous, high-performance cars or, otherwise, that he is an oil tycoon and consequently has a vested interest in putting profits before pollution. Now, please don't be deceived into believing that that alternatively-powered cars have too be small, slow and as dull as ditchwater. Here's what's available on the market right now: The Tesla Roadster is powered by an electric motor: http://www.teslamotors.com... The Venturi Fetish is hybrid-powered http://www.hybridcars.com... All Saabs are available with biofuel engines http://www.topgear.com... The Honda FCX Clarity runs on hydrogen http://automobiles.honda.com... And here's what's coming soon: The Audi R8 V12 Le Mans is powered by a V12 diesel engine http://www.audi.co.uk... The Saab Aero X Concept is powered by a V6 biofuel engine http://www.saabbiopower.co.uk... The RUF Porsche 911 is powered by an electric motor http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de... Glamorous enough for you? And who knows what else will be available by 2040? If my opponent agrees that green cars can be desirable, and it is rather the case that he makes a living by prospecting and drilling for oil, and stands to lose out financially if alternative fuels are mandated by the United States Government, I have little sympathy for him - the need to reduce reliance on fossil fuels is an urgent one and just as steam replaced the horse, and gasoline replaced steam, the switch to alternative fuels is inevitable and I advise my opponent to adjust his investment plans accordingly. Thank you.
Geography

Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) is one of the most important issues from around the world. GMOs are special organisms in which the genetic material has been altered for improvement productivity and product quality. GMOs have raised concerns over their own beneficial in that they are resistant to disease, help humans suffering from famine, produce greater yields, and improve the nutrition of foods. Having foods is very important to human life to maintain good health and to survive. It is not secret that GMO-ed foods have spread out rapidly to the whole world. If we could not stop the proliferation of GMO, we should know why it is harmful to our health and how we can prevent it. First of all, GMOs are harmful to our health. Second, transgenic crops lead to serious destruction of the environment and have contaminated organic crops. Third, major companies, which work closely with GMOs, intend to monopolize market-foods. Finally, to prevent GMO, it should be labeled and people should be recognized how dangerous GMO for us.
Girls should not be allowed to play in boys' sports leagues or on boys' teams.

For the sake of easy reading, I will structure my points the same as yours.Girls typically have a height advantage until boys reach puberty: Puberty occurs in girls on average 2-4 years earlier than it occurs in boys. This means that girls often have a height advantage over boys from the ages of 12-16. Should tall girls be limited to just playing with each other, even if they would provide suitable competition for boys? My answer is no. If they complete the tryout and make the team, there should be no problem with them competing with other boys, as long as they are on the same athletic level.Girls leagues showcase lower athletic ability on average, so girls who outmatch their opponents should be able to move to a mens" league: It is true that some girls completely outmatch their female opponents. This became evident recently when Mo"Ne Davis, the little league pitcher from Philadelphia dominated in the little league world series. This was a tournament for boys, yet she showed the world that she was just as good, if not better then them. It isn"t fair to relegate someone of her athletic ability to a "girls only" league. She showed she could compete with the best little league baseball players in the world, so why should we force her to play lesser competition.Girls should be allowed to play on boys teams if there are no girls teams available: The best example I can give of this is American Football. Traditionally, there aren"t many womens football leagues, and almost no girls football leagues. Girls are often very capable of being on a football team. The most suitable position for a girl on a football team is kicker. Many middle school, high school, and even college teams have women on their teams because there is no womens football league. One example of this is Katie Hnida, who was the first female to score in a division 1-a bowl game. I have also included a list of womens football players in my sources. These women do exceptionally well and should not be disallowed from playing a sport they love.Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.si.com...http://www.denverpost.com...
Girls should not be allowed to play in boys' sports leagues or on boys' teams.

In this situation, I will define juvenile as between 12 and 18. For most purposes, it would be below 18 years of age, but below a certain age sports leagues are not competitive to a point where gender doesn't matter to participants in any way. I will also define league as all sports leagues, boys or girls. There are often clearly defined leagues for boys and girls, and I do not want this to turn into a semantics argument saying that "technically you CAN play in these leagues." If it is a co-ed league, then this is fine, but for this debate just accept boys' league as a league that boys play in customarily. For clarification, I do mean a league where there would be no gender-related advantages.Hopefully these definitions are clear. I will now start my argument. Remember, Con, no rebuttals to my case in your argument this round.I support gender equality in the world as a whole, but gender equality in juvenile sports leagues is unnecessary and detrimental to all participants in this league. I have multiple points that support my argument.1. Allowing girls to play on the same team or even in the same league as boys can be awkward and generally uncomfortable to both sides. I have had close experience with this myself. My brother played in a boys' basketball league for multiple years, and came back again in around eighth grade. One of his games was against an all girls team. The whole game was not enjoyable to him, as it feels wrong to play against girls. Basketball is an extremely physical sport, yet he was hesitant to push girls around as this is frowned upon in society. As some may know, a critical part of basketball is boxing out. This is when a defender tries to block their opponent from getting a rebound. This is also very physical, but it is not easy to do without being rough with your opponents. Again, my brother was reluctant to be as aggressive with a girls team as he normally would have been.2. Girls often have equal opportunity to play in the same sport. Again, with the same example, there was a girls league available for this team. I don't know why the team decided to play in a boys' league, but they clearly could have avoided this whole situation. If there is no league in the area, then the girls can choose to start their own league or join one farther away.3. It would be unfair the other way around. If there were boys in a girls' league, would this be fair to anyone? Boys are biologically more capable than girls, and as a result they are stronger, more skilled, and better at sports in general. If a girl can join a boys' league, what would stop a boy from doing the same thing? Unless you want this to happen, and you want sports to be unfair and less enjoyable, then this should not be allowed.I believe I have laid out my case well, and I am anxious to see Con's response to this argument. Again, thank you for accepting, and I wish you a fair debate.
Girls should not be allowed to play in boys' sports leagues or on boys' teams.

TopicGirls should not be allowed to play in boys' sports leagues or on a team in these leagues.Debate LayoutRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Opening argument, no rebuttal by Con (as Pro has no opportunity for rebuttal)Round 3: Rebuttals, no new points by either sideRound 4: Defense of sides, and closing argumentsTermsBy "boys' league" I mean a juvenile sports league that is aimed towards boys. Boys' leagues are viable material for this debate.To whoever accepts this debate, I wish you good luck and a clean, fair, and interesting debate. Thank you.
Girls should not be allowed to play in boys' sports leagues or on boys' teams.

Thank you for this debate Pro, once again I will structure my closing arguments the same as yours for easy reading.Point 1: Once again, I won't debate that girls are generally stronger than boys, but the height difference can make up for it in some sports which uitilize height.Point 2: This is true, but not always feasible depending on the circumstances of the league. It is often easier to just add a player, rather than going through the process of advancing to a different age tier. And to be specific, I am talking about a single player rather than an entire team.Point 3: This argument is flawed because you are assuming a girl must have played in an organized league to have been exposed to it. Little girls who have any male role model in their life will likely be exposed to the sport. Some of these girls grow an attachment to this sport, either by watching it on T.V. or by playing with other kids(not organized) and come to love the sport. If they wonder, 'why am I not allowed to play this simply because of my gender?' It will bring up some difficult questions for the parents, and anyone else involved.Closing argument: This entire argument is based more upon the exception, rather than the rule. Girls, on exception should be allowed to play with boys. This exception could be a multitude of things, ranging from out playing other girls, no league for girls, or any other reason in which a girl is being limited by her gender. Generally, it is not necessary for girls and boys to mix, but they should still have that option given that exception. The best way to go about this, in my opinion, is on a case by case basis. Thank you very much Pro for a great debate.
Girls should not be allowed to play in boys' sports leagues or on boys' teams.

Due to my opponent forfeiting his last round, I will counter the points he has previously made. Point 1: Please show me some actual evidence instead of anecdotal evidence. I would argue that learning how to cooperate with other genders may be an uncomfortable, but necessary step in development. Too many things are segregated these days and people forget how to work with the other gender. Playing with and against girls can be good experience for them and just because it may be uncomfortable doesn’t mean it isn’t right. Point 2: They also often don’t have equal opportunity. What should be done when a girl shows interest in football but has nowhere to play? Girls should be allowed to play with boys ESPECIALLY when there is not a girls team, which often happens. Nobody should be left out of something they enjoy. Point 3: I believe that there should not be any double standards, and IF there is no boys team of a sport, they should be allowed to participate. Between 4 and 7 percent of college cheerleaders in the U.S. are male(silverchips). They are allowed to participate since there is no alternative for them. This should be the same in other sports that don’t have a mens team. A point to remember is that it is rare when there is a womens version of a sport but not a mens. Source: http://silverchips.mbhs.edu...
Adam Sandler should not be allowed to make any more movies

Obviously taste is subjective, but Adam has made too many movies that are almost all the same. If you've seen one of his movies you've seen them all. I can think of better ways that investors could spend their money on such as charities or health services and the like. Adam Sandler's movies are so dumb that they make audiences dumb. Instead of watching dumb movies teenagers could be studying or playing sports or doing something constructive. Adam is like a tool for lowering peoples IQ.
Adam Sandler should not be allowed to make any more movies

If this is the case, then we can choose to pick out select "bad values" in just about any movie that is made, especially in the comedy genre. So, is the problem really Adam Sandler and his movies? Technically, Adam Sandler is just an actor. He isn't the director. He doesn't call all the shots. Therefore, doesn't the real problem lie in what kind of movies are allowed to be made? If Adam Sandler were removed, there would still be movies with these "bad values" and overused humor anyway.
Adam Sandler should not be allowed to make any more movies

In Happy Gilmore, for instance, Happy throws food at an elderly woman, accidentally kills a black man and thinks nothing of it, sleeps with an elderly asian woman, throws a man through a window, tries to stab someone with an ice skate, hits golf balls at multiple people in the street, breaks a man's false hand, makes fun of midgets, threatens someone with a broken bottle, swears repeatedly, and shoots someone in the head with a nail gun. Are these the values that teenagers should adopt?
Adam Sandler should not be allowed to make any more movies

That's actually not the case. Every movie of his is different than the last. In one movie, he tells stories that come to life; in another he's a golf champion; in yet another he can't stand his twin sister. Plus, every movie he makes has a moral that teaches the audience something, so teenagers are actually learning valuable lessons, like loving our families, believing in ourselves, shooting for the stars, using our imaginations. And honestly, banning his movies isn't going to save us money.
The United States federal government should pay financial reparations to African Americans

I am happy to debate this topic. The resolution states "The United States federal government should pay financial reparations to African Americans". I think that before we debate, this resolution should be defined since my adversary has not felt the need to define certain key terms. This resolution doesn't necessarily mean that the government should give money directly to African Americans from white taxpayers. My definitions come from the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Pay means " to make compensation for". Now what is the compensation for? Compensation must be given for something. It is for how the government used its liberal policies in the past 50 years to keep African Americans in the dirt. The meaning of the word Financial is "relating to money." This could be for giving welfare and restricting businesses or it could mean getting rid of the welfare state and the regulations. And finally, the meaning of the word reparation is "something that is done or given as a way of correcting a mistake that you have made or a bad situation that you have caused". In this case the mistake is the liberal policies since the 60's and the thing that is done is implementation of fiscal conservative policies to raise up the African American community. The African American community has been enslaved by the welfare state since the 1960's. As a result of these programs there are no incentives to go to work. As a result mothers have many children, live off welfare and the dad joins a gang and goes to jail or dies. The children do not go to good schools and aren't taught right from wrong. Recently black lives matter have been gaining popularity over a false narrative, that police officers are out to get them. As a result, cops are afraid for their lives and are hesitant to police their neighborhoods. Because of this, crimes against black people have risen. My first policy of reparation is to give more funding to the police across the inner cities and stop with the violent anti cop rhetoric. Actually show them support. This will let the police protect the black neighborhoods. My second policy of reparation is that of school choice. The federal government has no place legislating education. The states have that responsibility. The federal government could encourage school choice by favoring states and school districts who implement that system. School choice will allow a black lower class child into a private school which will teach him morals and give him a better education. I could continue with these types of policies if you want to continue the debate. Your main flaw was not being specific in your resolution and allowing me to go first therefore letting me define the debate according to my whim.
Iran poses a laegitimate threat to the United States

Thank you for the good luck, it's a nice change to debate someone that has some sense of manners First, I will attack your individual points, bring up new points if need be, and summarize 1. Iran not foolish September 11, 2001. Those terrorists were only a few people, yet caused us great harm and the lives of many. Don't be foolish and forget the story of David and Goliath! Small can hurt large. Even more prudent, Iran v. US is like US v. Britain. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it my friend. 2. Iran lacks political clout The enemy of my enemy is my friend. If Iran declared open war against the United States, they would have the full support of Al-Quieda, the Taliban, and any other terrorist group. Furthermore, countries who hate us and hate Israel would use this as a good opportunity to gang up on us and attack. Iran isn't liked, but we are hated 3. No threat Never leave your guard down. Just because it hasn't happened in a while does not mean it won't. Ask any general of the army if what you said was accurate. That is foolishness caused by peace. On September 10, 2001, did anyone actually think we were in danger of a terrorist attack? 4. Ignorance Ignorance is Bliss. Watch FOX NEWS. They had a special about this. Real video-taped footage of a parade, led by the president of Iran (cant spell his name so not going to try) burning scarecrow of Bush, burning american flags, holding a prayer that was said to damn america, and hold speeches damning america. I think this is proof. 5. Iran weak Look to pts 2 and 3 6. No threats look to pts 3 and 4 7. President of Iran has the upper class of the country on his side. Children are brainwashed from birth to hate America. A survey said that we had the most support from the teenagers of Iran. Why? Because they are teenagers. Look at Vietnam. Our citizens hated it, yet we still fought. Look to Iraq. Almost everyone hates it yet we are still there Now to why we should worry Only a small point for now ISRAEL Israel is our strongest ally and we have promised to protect them . Iran HATES Israel, and has promised to destroy them . Verbatem, "wipe them off the face of the earth" They have promised to use nukes against Israel if they had the chance. That is where the violence from the USA would come in.
Iran poses a laegitimate threat to the United States

I have debated about Iran in the past, and have seen several people on this site, as well as the president of the United States make this claim. I will be making my arguments based on the following points: 1. The US is the largest and only real superpower in the world, Iran is not foolish enough to attack us. 2. Iran does not have the political clout to garner any support for a campaign against the US. 3. While Iran has been tied to terrorism in the past, there have not been any significant terrorist attacks or significant terror plots uncovered since 9/11 to prove that we are in danger of terrorists sneaking a nuclear weapon. 4. We don't know enough about Iran to make claims regarding any large anti-American sentiment within the Iranian people. 5. Iran itself does not have the resources to engage in any type of confrontation with the US. 6. The Iranian government has made no meaningful threats to the United States. 7. The Iranian people are already dissatisfied with their government's foreign policy, specifically regarding President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and there would be little support for any confrontation with the US. Good luck to anyone who accepts my challenge
The Nuremberg Trials were unjust.

This is my first debate on this website, so I want to start off with a bang! My topic is something I feel strongly about, and that is the Nuremberg Trials being unjust to the Nazis. I am not a supporter of what they've done, I'm in fact a Jew myself with family members who fled Europe for America to escape, however I think the trial itself was unfair and the people accused of the "crimes against humanity" were facing extremely biased . I shall explain further in the later rounds. To mix things up, I will allow con to make his opening argument in addition to a statement of acceptance into this debate if he/she so chooses. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Opening Statements (or addition to opening statement if opponent chooses to do so in round 1) Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Conclusions If this turns into an insult match/flame war I will cancel the debate. I will also cancel the debate if my opponent resorts to calling out grammar issues if he/she has nothing else to discuss. May the best debater win!