BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Girls getting an education.

I confess, I only accepted this because I found the resolution too brainless and offensive to be allowed to remain in sight.Anyway pro has put forward no more than a Self Refuting Idea [2]. There are about 3.65 billion females on the planet, if they combined their efforts knitting sweaters, the rest of us would drown in the tide of knitwork; even if some of us hid from it, crops would be denied access to sunlight and die, and thus the death of the whole human race.Admitedly the death of the human race is morally neautral, but it would be inconvenient for we who count ourselves among its members. Far better for us to keep them busy in school, and not causing an extiction event.Sources:[2] http://rationalwiki.org...
Things that Donald Trump (the worst president of all time) and god (both are unclean) have in common

Ok, So you don"t believe in God, And that"s fine. If my God isn"t real, Then all of this" everything I"m doing" is for nothing, But if He existed, Then it means everything. What I mean is that if God doesn"t exist, Then when I die, I"ll die knowing that I lived my life with a meaning. I"ll know that I did my best to reach a standard for a god that doesn"t exist. But if God does exist, Then when I die, I will go and live forever with Him. Those verses from the Bible, Merely expresses what God allows, Not what He initiates or forces to happen. But even if those verses mean that God makes people lie, I would be honored to lie for God. Fear of God refers to fear or a specific sense of respect, Awe, And submission, And God does not "control" since we all have free will. How would you rule over millions of people who hate you? "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see" Hebrews 11:1. So even in your disbelief, You are still utilizing your faith. Do you have any proof that my God doesn't exist? God is a just God. When the time comes we all will be judged, And there will be no mercy because we all had our chance to accept Him. We will all be punished for our transgressions, And the consequences for our wrongdoing is eternal death. My God didn"t kill all those people for no reason. They had sinned against Him (as we all have), And they got their consequence. But you already know this because you have already read up on this God you don"t believe in. But sometimes war is the answer. If you were in charge of 300 million people, And there were hateful people trying to kill your people, What would you do? Blow them kisses? God was, Is, And always will be. God was not created, He has existed for eternity and will continue to exist. God is not affected by time, Space, And matter. While we might have numbers and intelligence, We still make mistakes. In contrast, God does not make any mistakes because He can"t. If text was the worst way to communicate, Then why are you here typing up toxic responses to a simpleton worthless scab of rot you don"t even know? If you don"t believe in God, What do you believe in? Logic? The Big Bang? Why do you believe what you believe? Can you honestly tell me that you think that a beautiful sunrise came from nothing? That planet Earth"s position (a perfect distance from the sun) was chance? That we came from monkeys? Trump is definitely not the best president, But he"s also not the worst. He can act impulsively and say things that he shouldn't. This fact doesn"t mean that he is a terrible person. "For since the creation of the world God"s invisible qualities"his eternal power and divine nature"have been clearly seen, Being understood from what has been made, So that people are without excuse. " Romans 1:20
Things that Donald Trump (the worst president of all time) and god (both are unclean) have in common

Secondly, This is my very first debate, So if I make any mistakes, Please forgive me. Thirdly, I would like to say that I do not mean to be toxic at all. Lastly, I will be replying point by point. I may ignore some points, For they are obviously not true. For some of these arguments, It may be true for Mr. Trump, But not for God. - Who hasn"t told a lie? This is not a valid point for because of our sinful nature, We have called told a lie. God cannot lie, Because that would not make any logical sense, Would it? - They do use power to rule. . . How else would they do their job? Sometimes they do use fear to rule, But sometimes a little fear is what you need to motivate people. - While Trump may use religion to gain power, God does not need any more power. God is omnipotent. - Trump and God do not love war, But if war is the answer, Then they are not afraid to wage it - God will always believe in peace and harmony, And there can only be peace and harmony under his guidance - "You shall not murder. " Exodus 20:13 - God loves and cares for everyone, And God"s plan will be carried out one way or another - "Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, For the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy. " Proverbs 31:8-9 - Have you heard the story of Job? - God is never wrong - Both Trump and God meticulously think through every decision. I"ll bet that Trump has advisors and data analyzers who help him with every decision. - If Trump had a cabbage brain, That how did he become the president? You say that no one can prove that God is real, And yet you speak as if He is real in the rest of your argument. As any other logical person may have observed, Most of your points were pointless, Blatant lies. Trash talking the president won"t take him out of office. Let it be clear that I see no reason to debate with you other than for fun and the experience.
Should euthanasia (mercy killing) be legalized

Then again if you are the parent its not your choice on wether or not your child should be euthanised because it isnt your life.Even if you are the parent you shouldnt be able to make choices for a life that isn't yours. Also the Hippocratic oath which is a oath doctors take and that oath it states that they will not give anyone deadly medicine if they were asked to help end that persons life.
Should euthanasia (mercy killing) be legalized

I will not argue you at all on the religious point of view. But most of the time the chance of their being a recovery is next to zero. If you were a parent and you were watching your child just lay in bed not being able to do anything for themselves, and you were not even sure if they knew what was happening around them would you want your child to live like that. Or a better question would you want to live like that. It is true that there deaths would impact those around them but in the long run there would be more relief than anything else.
Should euthanasia (mercy killing) be legalized

Euthanasia or mercy killing as it is more commonly known is when a person ends another person life out of mercy for them. This should be legalized because there gets to be a point when a person is no longer living there life. If you are extremely disabled and no longer can walk, talk, eat by yourself, or have any sense of what is going on around you, do you call that living. I think any parent in a situation like that should have the option to let there child finally rest in peace. It is called MERCY killing for a reason. (I am sorry if my opening argument is bad, I am very new to this site and to debating)
Can science answer the 'meaning of life', apart from Religion

You made some very good points but our meaning of life cannot be answered with a holy book or diety. Our purpose needs to be defined by our goals and caring for others etc. Meeting your creator does not really answer the question ' what is the meaning of life' as it is based on an assumption that he will exist. Don't get me wrong I do know that you need to do many things to pursue that goal but it does not give you an answer to our meaning but only our purpose. Also as our popes have stated you cannot reject scientific evidence. Also I would like to note that saying we created nothing from something is a very odd statement as the big bang theory was an expansion of particles meaning something was there. Also I would like to stay of the big bang theory topic for the next round as it only provides us an explanation for our begginings and creation rather then our meaning. Back to the topic of our purpose meeting my creator would be nearly impossible. This is not because i think he is non-existant but that there are hundreds of different creation stories and creators. For me to take a blind guess is very risque and I should stick to what seems to have more evidence. But if all the hundreds of gods were to all be disproven or compelling evidence is shown I will go to what seems best. To be honest this is a very philisophical question and cannot be answered easily by either. But my question to you is that if you found out there was no god what would be your purpose and would your life have no meaning?
Can science answer the 'meaning of life', apart from Religion

Science does this the best way it can. No matter how hard we try we will never know the exact origins of our existence as we were never there. But science's job is to provide us with the best answer as I stated before. The big bang theory and evolution is supported by countless amounts of evidence. This is our best answer and as science progresses we will be able to find new evidence. This is a bold statement but it has happened before. As for our purpose that is something that can not be answered by science but by each individual being. We do not all have one purpose that we must follow. Someone's purpose in life can be answered by natural selection. We know that we must thrive and survive if we were to be animals but we are on top of the food chain. If we were to still have animal like needs for survival this would be our purpose but as we have evolved to our level this has changed. Because of this we have to find our purpose through working, becoming educated and finding new things. The meaning of life can be answered by science but our purpose is something very hard to answer with science.We were also not created by chance as the big bang was an event that put our planet in the habitable zone which is millions of miles long. There have been many planets in these zones making us not that special went it comes to our placement and the chance of it happening.Another thing is that religion also cannot answer the question of our purpose. Since you do believe in a heaven and hell doesn't that mean that your purpose is to try and have a good life after death. I believe in making the best of your life and always living for something or someone. This is like saying that if you don't live for something you die for nothing. My question to you is why do you think that believing in god answers the question of 'the meaning if life'?
Can science answer the 'meaning of life', apart from Religion

I do believe that science can answer this very complex question. We have one very compelling answer which is the big bang theory. But as science has done many times in the past, theories can be replaced with better answers. The big bang theory can be our best answer to our creation or it can be replaced by a better theory. In time we will find more evidence and our thoughts on certain subjects and theories will change.This is why I believe that the question referring to our creation can be answered through science.
Can science answer the 'meaning of life', apart from Religion

To answer this question I am basing it off the idea that life, apart from a creator, came from the happenings of the Big Bang. Openly I will admit I will use this topic as less of a debate, and more as a place of discussion to explore the thoughts, behind this question, in the mind of someone who believes the Big Bang theory as the way the universe and life came to be. Simply put, if we are made solely out of chance, and we are nothing more then, (forgive me if I don't have this completely correct) a single cell organism that grew to what we now know as humans, lives a life on this planet, and then dies without anything further, what is the meaning to life? We grew to what we are as humans, another pair of humans made us, we live life, and then we die. My stance on this is against because being a Christian, I believe that God created this universe, everything, and everyone on it. Life as a creationist has a sense of meaning because I was made with a purpose as well as everyone around me, and there is an eternal end in sight. I will humbly accept defeat, but ultimately, I just want to have a good honest discussion on such an important topic. Thank You.
"Thou shalt not kill" should be changed to "killing is negotiable"

"Those arguments do not soundly dispute what I have put as my argument. God commanded killing and did the killing on numerous occasions and still demands those commandments be carried out to this date for anyone who lies with another man, anyone who is a supposed witch, anyone who disobeys a preist or their parents, any woman that is not a virgin on the day of her wedding." These arguments completely dispute Pro's argument. Exodus 20:13 is a commandment against murder which is the malignant and selfish attempt to take someone's life without a good reason, not killing. Pro fails to provide evidence from the Bible that we are to kill those who have sinned against God by breaking his Laws. Murder is clearly wrong based on the Hebrew of Exodus 20:13, therefore murder is wrong and killing in the Old Testament was commanded, not negotiable as Pro had pointed out to wipe out evil from the land.
"Thou shalt not kill" should be changed to "killing is negotiable"

Those arguments do not soundly dispute what I have put as my argument. God commanded killing and did the killing on numerous occasions and still demands those commandments be carried out to this date for anyone who lies with another man, anyone who is a supposed witch, anyone who disobeys a preist or their parents, any woman that is not a virgin on the day of her wedding. Many examples that I posted said "put to death". And one's own rule is not justification for that rule. God's rule is not justification for any sort of killings. And the main idea behind this is that God doesn't care about killing. God doesn't care if you kill someone. Chances are, they sinned, so kill anyone. A LARGE handful of women are not virgins on the day of their wedding, homosexuals are running around everywhere (which is perfectly okay), many people fight with their parents, many people don't listen to the preist, and many, many people are preaching things of other religions, and in a town where someone is preaching the teachings of another religion, the whole town must be put to death. So, if someone were to kill, they wouldn't be doing anything wrong in the lord's eyes.
"Thou shalt not kill" should be changed to "killing is negotiable"

The Hebrew word for "kill" in the Old Testament is "Ratsach" which means "to murder or kill." This verb is not used when referring to war. Joshua 10:19 "19 And stay ye not, but pursue after your enemies, and smite (Zanab Strong's #H2179) the hindmost of them; suffer them not to enter into their cities: for the Lord your God hath delivered them into your hand." The word "Nakah" simply means to kill and is used in Joshua 10:28-32, but never is the word Ratsach used. Here are verses having the word "Ratsach": Exodus 20:13 "You shall not kill (Ratsach)" Num. 35:6 "6 And among the cities which ye shall give unto the Levites there shall be six cities for refuge, which ye shall appoint for the manslayer (Ratsach), that he may flee thither: and to them ye shall add forty and two cities." v. 11 "11 Then ye shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you; that the slayer (Ratsach) may flee thither, which killeth any person at unawares." v. 16 "16 And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer (Ratsach): the murderer shall surely be put to death." Old Testament scholar, Laird Harris wrote this about Ratsach: "ratsach is a purely Hebrew term. It has no clear cognate in any of the contemporary tongues. The root occurs thirty-eight times in the OT, with fourteen occurrences in Num 35. The initial use of the root appears in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:13). In that important text it appears in the simple Qal stem with the negative adverb, "You shall not murder," being a more precise reading than the too-general KJV "thou shalt not kill."" (Harris etc, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, #2208) Thus killing done under God's command and God killing the wicked is not murder, but is justified.
There was no natural origin of the universe

I think this will be a lot of fun. Contention 1: The Law of Conservation of Mass states that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Because matter and energy cannot be created, the matter and energy present in the universe cannot have a natural origin. Contention 2: The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy increases over time, and that the amount of usable energy in the universe is deteriorating over time. Simply put, energy travels from areas of high concentration to areas of low concentration. Because energy cannot travel against the gradient, it is impossible for energy to become more concentrated. Because energy cannot become more concentrated, it must be concluded that concentrated energy is a product of super natural forces. Contention 3: Science is the study of the natural world. Because God is a supernatural being, and creation is a super natural event, it does not fall into the realm of science. Therefore scientific, or natural laws, do no apply. We see that the creation of matter, the creation of energy, and the concentration of energy are impossible according to scientific law. Because only the supernatural world falls outside the realm of science, it must be concluded that the creation of matter, creation of energy, or the concentration of energy is a supernatural event.
There was no natural origin of the universe

Resolution states: There was no natural origin of the universe. For the purpose of this debate, we will accept the natural laws of science as fact. I will be supporting the argument that the origin of the universe was not natural, I.E. a creationist viewpoint. Con will be arguing the origin of the universe was in fact natural, with no divine intervention. Please refrain from any personal attacks, name calling, or foul language. Let's make this a good, civil debate.
Fast food should stay at hospitals

If the patient has a serious illness, they should not be leaving their ward for health reasons. Therefore, the only people using it would be the patients with injuries and the families of patients. Patients with leg injuries would find themselves restricted to a wheelchair or crutches, and patients with arm injuries would find themselves restricted with what they can eat. Therefore the only people who would eat there commonly are the families of those who are at the hospital, and in most common scenarios, the families would only be dropping in to see the patient and stay with the patient for a short time, meaning that they would only stay for one meal, and if not, they would probably not chose the same restaurant to eat at twice. If this was a children's hospital, the parent staying with the child would be most likely sensible enough to not eat at a fast food restaurant too much.
Fast food should stay at hospitals

As the person making the claim, Pro assumes the burden of proof. Pro's argument is that fast food should be served at hospitals because they provide the hospital with additional revenue. If the hospital sold illicit drugs they would also be provided with additional revenue. If the hospital skimped on medicinal supplies it would lower their costs, providing them with additional revenue. If the hospital simply charged patients more the same procedures, that would provide them with additional revenue. As you can see, additional revenue can be achieved in numerous ways. Not all of them are good. Providing fast food at a hospital is not a good way to raise revenue simply because it'll increase healthcare costs in the long run. If we increase healthcare costs, money that could've been spent in other areas (research, innovation, planning) is now used to treat people with health problems It may raise revenue in the short run, but health conditions that are caused by unhealthy foods (such as fast food) are a greater cost burden on our healthcare system. Fast food contributes to diabetes, obesity, heart problems, vitamin deficiencies, and a myriad of other health related issues. If "raising revenue" is the only goal, there are other ways to achieve this without introducing greater costs in the long run. Serving fast food at hospitals is an option that introduces greater costs in the long run due to the health-related problems that fast food causes. I don't have any burden of proof in this debate so if I show that my opponent's claim is not worth accepting, I will win on that basis alone without providing a counter-plan.
Choose your topic

1. The fact that I am a Christian does not guarantee that I will get voter bias from other Christians on DDO because this debate has not even gotten 800 views, so it is unlikely that another Christian has seen this debate yet. Plus, atheists have probably seen this debate, and atheists these days hate Christianity itself, so they will probably take the vote from me because I am a Christian. 2. This debate has not gotten even ten percent of the number of views one of my most serious debates: "Resolved: God's existence does not entirely violate science. " It has gotten over 4,000 views, and this debate has not gotten more than 200. That is not nearly enough to have a good chance of getting at least one vote. 3. All my joke arguments were, as I labeled them, jokes. You have refuted them quite successfully, and your jokes are just about as funny as mine were, if not funnier. I do not actually believe you to be Batman, but you are, indeed, a genius.