BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Christian god sends aborted babies to hell.

John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."https://www.biblegateway.com...I would like you to observe the following Venn diagram that I have made regarding this: In the black section we see aborted fetuses, or 'babies' (another issue I will regard later on). These entities do not believe in God and John 3:16 only states that those who believe in Jesus, and by extension God, are permitted eternal life. Another issue with John 3:16 is that while it guarantees eternal life for those who believe in God, if those who did not believe in God 'perished' and did not have 'eternal life', then how would they be punished for eternity in the first place? Isn't hell supposed to be eternal agony? If you simply have your soul and body perish in hell then that might just be the cure for boredom many sinners had wished to find in life.Psalm is someone stating that they thought they were sinful at birth. A fetus has not yet been born. It then goes on to imply 'sinful from the time my mother conceived me'. The fact that it states 'mother conceived me' and not 'parents conceived me' and doesn't even point to the father figure implies that this individual thought conception was something other than the formation of a zygote and was not referring to the sexual production of them but rather their 'conception' into this world (which was funnily enough the 'birth' they'd referred to in the previous sentence). Back when the Bible was written people didn't know all that much about how children were conceived, many thought that sex was just something fun to do with your partner and that the marriage itself encouraged a randomized birth rota to commence in the wife. There was literally no understanding of the direct link between sex and birth. Thus, the sexual conception of the child could not possibly have been what this was referring to. He probably was just reiterating what he meant. If everyone was sinful from the time they were conceived getting into heaven would be impossible and an unfair uphill struggle that would encourage no-one to believe in the religion an everyone to be disgusted at how unfair God is. Thus, the correct interpretation of it must be that only from the time you enter the world and actually can remotely act and think are you judged.Another issue entirely is that there is no such thing as an aborted baby, making this resolution impossible for Pro to uphold. Aborted fetuses going to hell would be another debate entirely. As for the notion that God sends the 'aborted babies' to hell, this is also impossible as the body clearly remains on Earth no matter what. If the resolution meant that he sends their souls to hell, it should have specified this as the soul is not the aborted baby as a soul cannot be aborted in the first place since abortion is a purely organic process.I conclude that this resolution has not been fully upheld by Pro as yet and that it is, in fact, impossible to uphold.
The Christian god sends aborted babies to hell.

ArgumentJohn 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. " Those who sin and haven't received forgiveness of their sins and don't go to heaven. If they don't go to heaven, they must go to hell. Unborn babies don't have the cognitive ability to believe in his son, even if the child somehow was hearing the gospel from the outside world. Psalm 51:5 says, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. " The moment you are conceived, god sees you as sinful. Therefore, if you die before you believe in his one and only son, you go to hell. Thank you and good luck.
The Christian god sends aborted babies to hell.

My opponent will argue that it doesn't. Rules: 1. Assume god exists. 2. Must use NIV Bible when quoting from the Bible. 3. BoP is on Pro. 4. Assume the Bible is 100% truth. Note: This means that if the Bible claims that Joseph can walk on air, we may not argue that he didn't walk on air. If the Bible says that Joseph said, "I can walk on air" we can argue that Joseph couldn't actually walk on air. 5. Assume the dichotomy of afterlife which are heaven and hell. 6. Assume the afterlives are mutually exclusive. 7. No kritiks. 8. Rule breaking results in a loss.
The Minimum Wage

Resolution: The minimum wage is, overall, a good policy. I will be defending the position that it is, overall, a bad policy. (That is, a minimum wage having any economic effect, not a minimum wage too low to have any effect at all). 1) There exists a marginal productivity (Amount of revenue that worker brings their employer per hour of work) for workers 2) Because companies compete with each other for workers, a worker's wage will be close to that marginal productivity. (If a worker is making significantly less than their marginal productivity, another person can make a profit by hiring them for slightly more than they're making, and so on until the wage is approximately the marginal productivity). 3) A government declaration of a 'minimum wage' doesn't raise the productivity of workers. 4) If a minimum wage is set above the marginal productivity of a worker, that worker's employer must either continue paying that worker, losing money, or fire that worker 5) Businesses aren't charities, they will not hire workers for a loss 6) So the minimum wage can only cause unemployment. The data confirms my argument, showing that a 10% increase in the minimum wage (assuming the minimum wage is already high enough to have any effect—a 1c minimum wage would have no effects at all) causes about a 4-6% increase in unemployment [1] [2] But empirical data by itself doesn't necessarily matter—it can be affected by other things that can’t be controlled for in studies. What matters is if my argument is logically sound, and it is. The problem people have with this argument is that they don’t accept the 2nd premise—many think that wages will be significantly lower than workers’ marginal productivity, and so a minimum wage can increase wages by decreasing profits. This is based on the idea that low-skilled workers, the ones that would be affected by the minimum wage, don’t have the bargaining power required to get higher wages like higher skilled workers do. This, however, is false. If it were true, industries that used low-skilled workers would have significantly higher rates of profit than those that don’t. Not only is this factually not the case, if it ever were the case, it would quickly change. We all know businessmen and investors are greedy—they always want to maximize their profits. And so, obviously, investors will tend to invest in the industries with the highest profit rates they can find. If these were industries employing low-skilled workers, then this additional investment would increase the demand for these workers, driving up their wages. And there would always be enough demand to do this—if a certain amount of investment wasn’t enough, then profit rates in that industry would remain high, which would attract even more investment, and so on. [1] Richard Burkhauser, Kenneth Couch et David Wittenberg, "Who Minimum Wage Increases Bite: An Analysis Using Monthly Data from the SIPP and CPS", Southern Economic Journal, 2000). [2] http://showmeinstitute.org...
Whites are superior to blacks, and blacks are dragging us down.

Whites are superior to blacks, and blacks are dragging us down. Burden of Proof is 100% Pro’s Con only has to undermine the evidence, claims, and reasons. I will provide a couple of individuals that easy come to mind: Neil deGrasse Tyson: He is black. He is an astrophysicist that went to Harvard and Columbia University, how is he inferior to all whites intellectually/creatively? And once that is established, Pro must also demonstrate that Neil deGrasse Tyson is dragging us down. Ben Carson: Ben Caron in a neurosurgeon, who will likely run in the Presidential election, please explain how Ben Carson is inferior to all white democrats and then demonstrate how Ben Carson is dragging us down. Oprah is black and is a successful businesswoman, a billionaire. Pro must provide evidence that she is inferior to all white business people, and how she (a black) is dragging us down. I will provide the example: Bernie Madoff. How is Oprah, who runs a successful businesses, inferior to the business (i.e. Ponzi Scheme perpetuated by Bernie Madoff). How is Bernie Madoff’s intelligence and creativity superior to Oprah’s? If Pro cannot demonstrate both, then Pro has to show that Oprah is dragging us down. Michael Jordan is black, arguably the best basketball player in NBA history. Provide a list of white men that Michael Jordan was inferior too during his career. Then if established, proceed to explain how Michel Jordan personally is dragging us down by the very fact of his existence. Clarence Thomas: Clarence Thomas is a black man on the Supreme Court of the United States, how is he inferior to all his white colleagues as a constitutional thinker, creative legal mind, and constitutional scholar. Then explain how Clarence Thomas is dragging us down. Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice (both Secretaries of State under Bush Administration): How are Secretary Powell (a four-star general) and Condoleezza Rice (a classically trained pianist who taught at Stanford) inferior to Hillary Clinton during their time as Secretary of State. Pro should also explain how David Hasselhoff is superior to all of the people listed above, especially in intelligence and creativity. Also please explain how Hitler and Jerry Sandusky how a superior sense of morality and ethics why they are superior to the individuals listed above.
Whites are superior to blacks, and blacks are dragging us down.

In historical terms, Whites have always been the most intelligent/creative of any other race. We also were great fighters/military strategists the world has ever known. Yes, whites are superior in this regard compared to non-whites. The biggest downside however, is the tendency in the White race to be compassionate and a benevolent people. These qualities have always been counter-productive to the improvement of the race. And it is these qualities that let our guard down when we let an alien minority whose racial consciousness, opposite of ours in times past, is inherently evil. And now this alien elite is making every attempt to morally degrade every facet of White history and culture, undermine the morality and kinship we once had with each other. It's important that we learn our mistakes from history and do not repeat them in the future. Whites are more inventive, despite Africans having plentiful resources in their land they are incapable of using them, even after thousands of years. White architecture, military, medicine, infrastructure and really just society as a whole is on a far superior level as compared to with blacks. Blacks have proven themselves to have great difficulty with even maintaining a white civilization in Rhodesia-Zimbabwe/South Africa/Haiti for example. Blacks inventors are non-existent, those few that are there are virtually all mixed with whites. Black culture is highly inferior.
Whites are superior to blacks, and blacks are dragging us down.

Okay, so Pro has continued to AVOID THE DEBATE RESOLUTION: Whites are superior to blacks, and blacks are dragging us down. The Burden of Proof is on Pro to demonstrate: (a) White are superior to blacks (b) Blacks are dragging us down PRO HAS FAILED TO TACKLE THE ACTUAL DEBATE This round I will ask Pro AGAIN to address a concrete specific question about two whites [Caucasian-Americans] and two blacks [African-Americans]. PRO MUST ANSWER: (a) How Hillary Clinton and John Kerry [whites] are superior to [blacks] Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. [THEN PRO MUST ANSWER] (b) How blacks [Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice] are dragging us down Ancillary issues: Pro conceded in the last round that “Unfortunately, I can"t [sic] debunk con"s [sic] claims because i [sic] have no more room to write.” Therefore, Pro has failed to debunk or address any of the evidence, accurately cited in footnotes [author, date, and specific work/book/article] that Con has provided throughout the debate. The frequency of [sic] is a single sentence provides an example of why voters should give spelling and grammar points to Con. PRO PROVIDES THE HOMEPAGE OF WEBSITES, THERE IS NOT A SINGLE STUDY, PIECE OF EVIDENCE, OR ACTUAL STUDY IN ON ANY OF THE LINKS GIVEN BY PRO. Con should receive conduct points because Pro has avoided the resolution entirely and the sources provide link to ZERO EVIDENCE.
Movies Versus Books

Before I start since this is my opponents first debate I am going to refrain him from typing things like; "BOOKS ARE DA BOMB MAN!!! They are MaGiCaL :))" As it may cost you a few points in the voting period. Now for my arguments.Arguments RealisticUnlike books, movies allow you to know what that character may be like for example. Children these days have a limited imagination thus, not allowing them to picture what a scenery or person may be like. This topic can also explain how a genre is better to understand and feel if you watch it instead of read it.FasterI'm sure that everyone is in a hurry to do things on their to-do list. If you watch a movie, of a book for example, you will know the characters and the story much faster than reading especially if you are not a fast reader. Acting, Directing etc.Movies are obviously better because the main people such as the actors or directors are so well known and they create such magnificent effects in their movies that it seems so real. People like actors for a reason weather it be their looks or talent people still like them better then the authors.
Movies Versus Books

As this is my opponents first debate I will make this a basic debate. There will be three rounds. Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: ArgumentsRound 3: Refutes and ConclusionsThere will be no abuse of semantics and linguistics and I would love if this would be a fun debate that we can enjoy. I wish the best of luck to my opponent though he may not even need it. This debate will be a debate to decide if movies or books are better. I will allow my opponent decide what side he will take and I will take the other. My opponent may add rules as he likes on his acceptance round. Let the debate commence!
Suicide Is Objectively Wrong

My resolution: Suicide is not objectively wrong. Rules-Please no trolling or semantics.Definitions-suicide- the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally especially by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind. is- present 3d singular of be.objectively- dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. wrong- something wrong, immoral, or unethical; especially: principles, practices, or conduct contrary to justice, goodness, equity, or law. Round Structure-1. Acceptance2. Neg. Will present case. Aff. will attempt to negate Neg.'s arguments. Aff. will present his/her case.3. Neg. will defend R2 arguments. Neg. will attempt to negate Aff.'s arguments. Aff. will deconstruct Neg.'s defenses. Aff. will defend his/her arguments.4. Neg. will deconstruct Aff.'s deconstructions. Neg. will deconstruct Aff.'s defenses. Neg. will come to supposed conclusion. Aff. will attempt to negate Neg.'s counter-deconstructions. Aff. will defend his original arguments once more. Conclusion will be stated by Aff. The BOP will be shared.
Islam is more logical than Christianity.

Thank you for your argument, Pro. Now before I start my argument, I am going to emphasize a notion that most Muslims and Christians generally accept: Allah (the Islamic god) and God(meaning the Christian god) are seen as the same god. 1)Islam illogical Islam follows the teachings of Muhammad and claims to uphold the teachings of Jesus and many other prophets in the Christian Bible (3:84 AYA). but this is simply illogical because Jesus states to Philip in John 14:6. (I am sorry but I cannot right these out as I am unskilled with the keyboard and do not know how to type in Italics). So if the Koran says that Muslims must also follow the teachings of Jesus, Then don't Muslims also have to accept Jesus as the son of god and therefore become Christians? That renders Islam illogical 2) Jesus Versus Muhammad Both claim to be messengers of god, but which one is logically more likely to be the one we should follow? Is it more logical to follow the teachings of someone(Muhammad) who only had one encounter with an angel(Koran 74:1-5) and not god, rather than someone who IS god? (John 10:30). And I needn't remind anyone that Muhammad was a big time sinner before and after he had been told to spread his teachings and make the trip from Medina all the way to Makah. How is it logical to follow the word of a man who tortured others but never suffered any torture himself (i.e. Muslims 4131, Ibn Ishaq 436,595, 734, 764) Instead of the word of Jesus Christ who never sinned himself but instead bore the punishment for all of the sins that WE committed so that we might be granted an eternal life with god that we do not deserve? I conclude my argument These are my sources : http://carm.org... http://www.answering-islam.org... http://www.seekgod.org... http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...
Islam is more logical than Christianity.

In this debate, I will argue that Islam is more logical than Christianity. This is a purely theological debate, a comparison of the teachings of each religion in light of logic and simplicity. My opponent, preferably a Christian, will argue that the teachings of Christianity make more sense than the teachings of Islam.R1: Acceptance (No arguments allowed in this round)R2: Arguments (No rebuttals allowed in this round)R3: Rebuttals and ArgumentsR4: Rebuttals and conclusions (No new arguments allowed in this round)By accepting this debate, My opponent agrees to this layout and to the following rules:This remains a debate on Christianity and Islam, no other ideology is allowed into the debate.No personal insults or offensive tones. This is a sensitive subject, but I hope to approach it objectively.Criticizing the religion in question or its texts is allowed, but must be in a respectful manner.I look forward to a great debate!
Men vs Women in Equality (U.S)

Con will have the task of proving that Men in the United States are treated more unfairly than Women are. Pro will have the task of proving that Women in the United States are treated more unfairly than Men. This debate is concerning present day status of equality between Men and Women in the United States only. Round 1 will be for acceptance only. Round 2 will be for opening arguments. Round 3 will contain rebuttals and if needed, additional points of argument. Round 4 will be continued rebuttals. Round 5 will be for summarizing each argument and will not contain any rebuttals but focus solidly on the case each has made in summary. Disqualification criteria: Citing false or otherwise unfounded statistical data. Making generalized statements such as "Most people believe" without providing proof. Offering any statement that can be considered illogical beyond reasonable doubt. Attempting to use opinion to justify opinion.
U.S. intervention is Syria

I am against the notion that the United States should attack Assad's establishments in any way for whatever reasons. As Pro, you are to provide a debate for the notion on reasons why the U.S. and it's allies should be able to do so. This round (round 1) shall be used for acceptance. By accepting the debate it will be generally assumed that you know your task. We shall both present our arguments in round 2, however, if Pro is willing, then he/she is able to present both his acceptance and his stance in this round (round 1). And for the sake of good sportsmanship, if any loopholes or parlor tricks are found, don't use them simple to achieve a quick win. Please and thank you.
Homeschooling

I will be arguing that homeschooling should not be allowed in America, and that children should be made to go to a public or private school. Pro will be arguing for allowing homeschooling. Definitions: Homeschooling - to teach school subjects to one's children at home instead of sending them to school (public or private) Rules: 1. The first round is for acceptance only 2. No trolling or semantics 3. No forfeits 4.
Homeschooling

For the final round, I will defend my own arguments and state the conclusion for this debate.Builds IndependenceI argued that one benefit to homeschooling is the gain in independence. In the last round, my opponent rebuttaled that independence is a very important thing, however he argues that social interaction is far more important. I will argue that independence is a primary factor more so than social interaction. According to the article Ian Welsh, a high uptight business man, "It makes sense that the more independent employee, able to work alone, should be the best choice" (1). He argues that independence should come first for the simple fact that no one is always going to "hold your hand". Homeschooling achieves this idea by promoting more independence than social interaction. However, social interaction shouldn't be completely neglected, more so a second end priority.Allows Passion to SpreadMy opponent then argues that forced education is needed within a schooling system. Maybe at times yes, however we are arguing on whether or not homeschooling should be banned from America. I'm not saying that all education should be free will, but a majority should; and homeschooling achieves this value greatly. It is agreed that certain colleges and classes require a curriculum, but I like to look at a more successful type of school that did a more hands on learning, than being forced to learn something. The example I am bringing up are Tech Schools.Tech Schools, or Trade Schools, are schools in which the student learns a job hands on than through a book or series of required courses that will never be used later on in life. Homeschool does the same thing closely by driving a students passions to be used in the public, than having a delayed start on that hands on learning. And trade schools are actually better factually because of cost benefits, and getting a higher employment rate for knowing how to do the job instead of having to be trained. Homeschool achieves this value once more (2).To conclude this debate, my opponent makes many arguments but fails to follow through with them. My opponent, multiple times, has conceded to many of my previous arguments meaning he dropped the debate. He did this for about three of my own and his arguments combined meaning an easy indication on who won this debate. I followed through with my arguments on proving why homeschools should not be banned in America.I thank my opponent for this debate, and wish him good luck with his future!Sources:1. http://hr.toolbox.com...2. http://www.thesimpledollar.com...
Homeschooling

In this round, I will defend against my opponent's rebuttals. Education LearningI concede this point. Pro convinced me that homeschooling can provide a good education, although I still hold that there should be checks on the curriculum used to make sure it is at least as rigorous as public school. Lack of Social ExperienceWhile I don't have any empirical evidence to back my position up, I know plenty of homeschoolers who are socially awkward and can't pick up on social queues. Perhaps they grow out of this when they go to college or get a job however. BrainwashingWhile conforming to a particular way of thinking isn't necessarily bad, While I agree that "brainwashing" can happen at public or private school too, other kids will have different opinions, and thus will give the student a more rounded view of life. Thanks for debating, SnaxAttack.