BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Outlawing the burning of Americas flag will hurt patriotism

I've been informed that I must be very specific about what I am debating or my opponent can decide to debate something else. So here are the definitions flag burning: letting it catch on fire. doesn't matter how. you could use kerosene, a campfire, a forest fire, a volcano, stuff it in the grill, ect... patriotism: for this debate this only refers to America. love or devotion to ones country; http://www.merriam-webster.com... hurt: detrimental, abrasive to accumulation or fulfilment of, the opposite of aiding Outlawing: to make illegal. the ultimate act of our government declaring something as wrong. Americas flag: this thing http://hastings.house.gov... or copies of it. taking the Con position means you are against flag burning. you have to show that its practice ceasing to continue is not harmful to patriotism as would be legally defined the way it is above. as icing on the cake it would likely help your position to show how doing such would even be helpful to the public' s patriotism, but this debate does not hinge on that. for the audience who intends to vote, you should not vote for con if he or she should attempt to argue the effects of burning Americas flag has for other countries patriotism, nor should you vote for them if they argue what burning other countries flag has for Americas patriotism. you should also not give them your vote if they argue against only one kind of method of burning the flag, such as the effects of burning the flag with a normal lighter after soaking it in kerosene, or in a specific location, like in front of the white house or the local court house. because for this debates sake it does not matter where, on a boat, my backyard, at Disney land's parking lot, it is not relevant. for this debates sake it does not matter how, your stove, the grill, the furnace on a train, in a forest fire, all methods shall be covered by the imaginary law that outlaws burning of the flag. With these terms in place I have secured all the room for the arguments I plan to use; but right now I am more interested in what my opponent will have to say. Good luck!
abortion

True, there are many other ways to raise a child in today's world, but think of all the hassles that could include. Just finding a right family to give your baby to could take months, and plus, a young teenage girl could not be responsible enough to handle all these problems. While it is true that the parents could take care of the baby, is it right to push the burden stimulated from your own irresponsibility onto your own parents? And God does have a plan for every single baby, but the likelihood of that baby becoming the person to cure AIDS or cancer is very unlikely simply because of the conditions that it grows up in. If a teenage mother has that baby, most likely she has not even found a way to properly support herself and is living off of money from the government. Therefore the economic conditions that the future baby would grow up in would not be great. Also, it is even more unlikely because since the mother had a pregnancy at an early age, the future child might follow its mother's irresponsible actions, as parents set the standards and are role models for their children.
abortion

Well I know it's hard to raise a child these days but their are other ways to not take care of the child one way is adoption, another is to let her parents take car of it. you don't need to drop out of school to take care of a child I have a friend who had a child when she was 14 years old and she is still in school. God has a plan for that baby and it could probably help the world greatly like that baby could be the person to cure aids, cancer, or fix are economy..........
abortion

Abortion should be allowed because there are many instances when you have no other choice but to take an abortion. What if an innocent women gets raped, but she happens to only be 15 years old? She doesn't want to drop out of school when she didn't even choose to be pregnant, so obviously she would get an abortion. Technically, an abortion is not killing because the baby has not been born yet, so it has not yet entered into this world as a living thing; therefore an abortion is not killing. Another typical situation is if a women gets into a sexual situation but comes out of it with a baby that she didn't want. She doesn't want to drop out of school and have no future, therefore she would get an abortion so her life wouldn't be ruined.
The Bible is innaccurate

"People simply say that it's a true story. Easier said than shown. Without providing any evidence, not only with any sort of credibility, you can't trust that claim. " What about the two world wars? Does it have to be shown right in front of you to prove that it DID happen? We did not see it happen yet we believe the fact that it happened. About the two twins, they may be in their teens by now. if seeing is believing then I don't think that YOU even believe anything, but you do, you believe that you were born yet you did not see it happen. And as for your theory on Noah's ark, I am going to take reference from the rescuing hug story (which is a TRUE LIFE Story!). We know that simply by hugging someone you can't really save someone, yet it happened , once, it was a great miracle. Same with Noah's ark, when all the water was released, the ark did not get annihilated, because the Almighty watched over them, love. We can call it a miracle or what happened because of love or whatever we wish to call it, but the thing is that when the floods struck God watched over them, protected them. There shouldn't be any restrictions listed. when we are in school there is no rule book whatsoever that specifically notes that we should respect our teachers yet we know we should. Same there shouldn't always be a restriction listed for all the things we should do and not do. Or else we are just being spoon-fed a bit too much. If everything we should do and not do is listed we won't be able to figure out anything on our own. example, say someone came to you and asked you to be his or her sidekick in a huge crime like say kidnapping someone from the congress or someone really rich, obviously you would say no, considering what might be the risks, the consequence, even though you can do it you won't do so because you know its wrong. Same if God granted someone's prayers that said that they wanted to live longer, then God would have to expand the life span of everyone who wanted to live longer who wished or prayed for it, whoever they might be, because for God we are all equal. But if he does so there may be huge consequences which we 'MAN' don't know of because we are not God. if everyone's prayers were granted whatever it may be, then it would be a huge chaos plus man would become very selfish and greedy and get drawn towards the devil, as selfishness and greed are the beginning of evil practices, but God wants ALL of us to walk in the path of righteousness, make the right decisions, and possess the wisdom that comes down from heaven. (See. James 3:13 - 18) I apologize for my whole " doubts of the bible" part. People are after all free to believe what they wish to believe. It was a mistake for me think about the whole doubts thing. : ) We cool? I await for your next set of arguments. P.S. apologies for delay of arguments mysterygirl101
The Bible is innaccurate

miracles happen everyday. but some are not always considered important thus not reviewed. but there is one piece of evidence for the miracle thing. there was an article about "the rescuing hug" am not taking credit or anything just telling you. that is the evidence i'll use. The christian theory of how the earth was formed is the only theory that exactly tells us how everything on the earth was formed. even today no one is sure how the waters came on earth , but it is said and explained in the bible "the christian theory"!!! "NO RESTRICTIONS WERE LISTED! If none were, then all prayers, regardless of anything else, are granted." There shouldn't be any restrictions listed in the bible. Everyone should have the sense and figure it out themselves, that not everything can be given to them just because they pray. God is the one who decides whether it should be granted or not (prayers). the designer was God and only God, Noah was only the maker. The designs were all by God, himself. they also made it 18 inches thick as listed in the bible. God was with them the whole time watching over them, so God protected them from harm.. I hope that this time my argument is not "irrelevant" to your weight argument. i have no intentions to be rude, mad, whatsoever. i just don't want people to think that the bible is inaccurate just because they have doubts. -mystery girl 101 over :) your turn
The Bible is innaccurate

Rebuttals"they do not exist, miracles happen every day. "YOU NEED EVIDENCE! You always need evidence to back up your claims, especially this one. Just because something is said/written, doesn't mean it's true. "Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" you cannot explain how the earth had exactly been formed. "EXACTLY! So, how is the theory of Christianity distinctive in a manner that it should be the accepted theory? Prayers" Deaths happen it is part of life, everyone's time will come. Praying is not all. Mark 12:33 "To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all your burnt offerings and sacrifices" Everyone in the world is very attached to something or someone. Even if they say they are not, they are, it is part of human nature. Death will come to everyone sometime or the other, no matter what, it is natural, it is part of life. if there is no death then it is not considered living. "Like said, NO RESTRICTIONS WERE LISTED! If none were, then all prayers, regardless of anything else, are granted. Noah's Ark"Coming to your theory about Noah's Ark, Genesis 8:1 "But god remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded" God did not let the ark crash. Thus the waters did not annihilate the boat. "Indeed; According to the Bible: "But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. "[1]However, the flood lasted about more than 39 days[2]. So, a flood struck because it was released. It must've been powerful because using context, if the floods were released, there must've been potential energy; It was holding in. So, when the flood struck, the recession after more than 39 days doesn't reverse that; It has already happened. So, it should have demolished the ark. Not only that, but all currently existing animals during Noah's period, were invited. So, from the amount it had to carry, it doesn't reverse that. Your argument is so irrelevant to my weight argument. I await my opponent's next set of arguments. Also, it's not my intent to be rude. So, don't take it as so. :)Sources[1] Genesis 8:1[2] Genesis 6,7, and 8
The Bible is innaccurate

i am just going to start by saying that the bible is accurate. We all believe that air is there. But what you are showing, in my point of view is that just because you haven't seen those things or because they are hard to believe, they do not exist, miracles happen every day. How do you think the world was formed? The Big bang ,perhaps? Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" you cannot explain how the earth had exactly been formed. Deaths happen it is part of life, everyone's time will come. Praying is not all. Mark 12:33 "To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all your burnt offerings and sacrifices" Everyone in the world is very attached to something or someone. Even if they say they are not, they are, it is part of human nature. Death will come to everyone sometime or the other, no matter what, it is natural, it is part of life. if there is no death then it is not considered living. Coming to your theory about Noah's Ark, Genesis 8:1 "But god remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded" God did not let the ark crash. Thus the waters did not annihilate the boat. P.S. Please do correct if I am wrong in some parts or if I have made any mistakes, this is my first debate here. Sincerely mysterygirl101
The Bible is innaccurate

Rule1. No plagiarism; Don't copy someone else's work and claim it as your own.Failure to follow THIS RULE (In singular form because, there's only 1!) will result in a 7-point forfeiture.PresentationNoah's ArkNoah's ark was constructed OUT OF WOOD! So, according to the Bible: "11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on kthat day all lthe fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the mwindows of heaven were opened."[1]So, much brighter light was emmitted onto the Earth, emanating from Heaven, thus illuminating more. It also implies the release of water, possibly through large fissures in the ground or sea floor. So, there is potential energy; It wanted to escape. So, when water was released, it probably would've been very catastrophical.So, considering the powerful striking, it would have annahilated the ark. However, according to the Bible, it didn't. s://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com...; alt="" />Also, considering the amount it had to carry, it would've collapsed the ark; According to the Bible: " Bring a pair of every kind of animal—a male and a female—into the boat with you to keep them alive during the flood. Pairs of every kind of bird, and every kind of animal, and every kind of small animal that scurries along the ground, will come to you to be kept alive. And be sure to take on board enough food for your family and for all the animals.""[2] ALL currently existing animals, during Noah's 400 yr. old period, were invited to the ark. Also, regardless of grip, both would've occured (The grip makes the middle of a wooden plank more susceptible/vulnerable (Synonyms) to breakage) Prayers Some people (Like my Christian grandfather (Who passed away)) have been in the hospital. They had worshipped God. For all their lives, they pray sincerely to live longer than the time their doctors have scheduled will be the end of their lives. God listed no restrictions for granting prayers and for people receiving an answer. Not only that, but those starred in the Bible also have committed sin. So, how are we distinct from THEM that what was said to occur to them doesn't occur to us? Sources[1] Genesis 7:11[2] Genesis 6:19-22
You don't need religion to have morals

I can see your point and must give you some credit for that, I still can not full heartedly agree. We must simply look more closely at how weird morals in religion are. Let us look into the most popular religion among Westerners, Christianity. One of the 10 Commandments is "Thou shalt not kill." I think we can all agree here that this a very important moral that most Christians follow. However, even though this commandment is held to humans, it does not seem to come into affect with God. There is multiple passages were God contradicts this moral rule and smites humankind. Yet most Christians are not cold blooded killers. For your comment saying that we have no idea on what is right or wrong is absolutely true, but nobody really does. Right and wrong is basically a human made concept, it does not truly exist. I think it is morally wrong to deprive somebody on the right to love who they want to love, but others think differently. Going by what society says is the same thing as going by a book. Nobody knows what is right or wrong but we all try to make sense out of both. Empathy is a huge factor in the atheistic view on morality as well as human beings in general. Most of us have the empathy to imagine what the other person feels like or what it is like to be in their shoes. This is called the "golden rule" which actually predates Christianity and modern religion. Since I can imagine what it would be like to have something very dear stolen from me, I would not want to cause that pain to another human being. The main system of morals for atheist is simple, moral reasoning. This is basically where an individual tries to process the difference between right and wrong in a personal situation with logic. This is a daily thing where humans are presented with a problem or dilemma and then has to decide what is morally right by the choice and consequence with the action we choose. For example, if you are presented with an opportunity to lie, you morally decide if that is right or wrong then take action after dealing with the consequence. To sum up a bit, morals are not the same for everybody. We live in a gray world where we make our own ideas on morals based on empathy, moral reasoning, and culture. Religion is not needed here. No morals are correct or wrong because they differ from person to person. It is up to each of us to make our own beliefs and to pursue a path based on them whether you and I think it is morally right or not.
You don't need religion to have morals

Although Atheist have no written down morals that we must follow like religions have, we do carry social morals. It is socially recognized( at least in most places) that murder is wrong and is frowned upon. Likewise with rape. Different cultures have different morals as well that have nothing to do with religion. Religious people, most often Christians, choose to cherry pick morals and take what they don't like out and leave what they think is right in. Which would make their morals as relative as the atheists. Not to mention the fact that morals differ between religions. For example, the Islamic people are sinners to the Christians and vise versa. To quote an atheist on morals Dr. Darrel Ray is an excellent example. He states, "A close reading of the Old Testament is filled with horrendous lessons on how to treat people. A god that kills almost everyone on Earth in a flood: that"s pretty crazy. A god that commands Joshua to murder all the women and children except for the young girls, who can be taken as sex slaves: That"s horrible. A god that condemns anyone who eats shellfish: what is that all about? And of course. The 10 commandments tell you that working on Saturday or saying god"s name without a good reason makes you a bad person in the eyes of god. God eventually goes into great detail about how to deal with cattle thieves, isolating women on their period, and which fabrics to wear at the same time; but nowhere in those ten commandments, or in the six hundred and three that come after it, does it say "Don"t abuse children," or "Don"t enslave people," or "Don"t rape." He is absolutely right. If anything the bible promotes rape rather than disagrees with it. To say my first statement again, there are social morals. Always have been, even before the days of Jesus or any of the modern religious idols.
People who get home loans are welfare babies!

Thanks Smooosh for your prompt response and for pointing out a historical succession of events that have transpired within the mortgage industry. I would like to get back to the topic of " People who get home loans are welfare babies " If we may. Let's start by pointing two simple steps to a mortgage loan process. ( This process isn't Rocket Science ) 1. Apply for a Mortgage. A few things have changed since the real estate meltdown a few years ago. For purchase transactions, Real estate agents will first want to know if you can get a loan. In the old days, Financial institutions were doling out money to anyone with a heartbeat. Unfortunately, Soft lending standards helped fuel an eventual rash of foreclosures. Suffice it to say, Conditions on the ground have changed since then. Today, The best way to approach a real estate agent is with a lender pre-approval in hand. It shows that you"re ready and able to buy. Employment Name of current employer, Phone and street address Length of time at current employer Position/title Salary including overtime, Bonuses or commissions Income Two years of W-2s Profit & Loss statement if self-employed Pensions, Social Security Child support Alimony Assets Bank accounts (savings, Checking, Brokerage accounts) Real property Investments (stocks, Bonds, Retirement accounts) Proceeds from sale of current home Gifted funds from relatives (e. G. Down payment gift for FHA loan) 2. House shopping. Most likely you have a wife or a girl friend. They usually handle this aspect. If you live in an apartment most likely you don't have neither one in which case you shouldn't even be bothered with owning a home. There are programs available through certain organizations that provide assistance to 1st home buyers, Veterans and certain disadvantaged groups. Candidates who apply undergo a series of seminars and eligibility process before being approved. At the end of it all being said and done. The mortgagor is responsible for all monthly payments. No Agency in Government, Religious, Political, Secret society nor Interplanetary is going to pay your mortgage. Thus my point people who get home loans aren't Welfare Babies.
People who get home loans are welfare babies!

Below is a statement made by my opponent ; such statement is located in the comment section of this debate. "anti_ethnocentric, I will send you the challenge. You will see it in your profile, Just accept it. To clarify what I mean by "welfare baby", It's someone who is using government assistance to buy thier house. I mean no disrespect to anyone who has a home loan, As I have many friends who've done that. I also grew up on welfare, So technically, I am a welfare baby. The point of this debate, Is to shed light on where our national debt really comes from! . The point of this debate, Is to shed light on where our national debt really comes from! ". As you are all aware my Opponent created this debate " People who get home loans are welfare babies! ". . . My closing remarks. My opponent a self declared Welfare recipient, Who most likely have a Welfare mind set on Economics. Want to put the blame of our National debt on Individuals who apply for Home Loans. Any 3rd grader knows too well that National Debt is "The debt of the government; the amount of borrowing by the government to meet expenditures exceeding tax revenues. ". I'm not going to give a 10, 000 word Economic Decalogue. But would like to just close by stating " People who get Home Loans are not Welfare Babies " you section 8 suck up leach!