BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We need to send money to Africa to save it from development issues

Previous arguments extend. Now to attack my opponent's points. "Africa needs our support for diseases. 1 in 4 Africans have HIV or AIDS. providing funds to provide medicine and create knowledge for safe sex. If we provide money for doctors and missionaries they will use it to save millions of lives and develop its medical staff. If we develop their medical staff they will develop as a continent." Do you know how Africa ending up with this AIDS epidemic? It was because when the United Nations decided to vaccinate Africa completely of the polio virus. Somehow, an HIV virus (this is an RAS syndrome) ended up in the vaccine, and this vaccine was spread throughout Africa. From the Encyclopedia Idiotica: "Not just in Africa, but in other countries, it may have been customary to use the initial shipments as a base from which to increase the amount of vaccine being used. It is suggested that green monkeys or chimpanzee kidneys were used at the local level, both carriers of SIV-1, and that the vaccines therefore became contaminated with the virus the became HIV in humans." So, it is our fault that they ended up with AIDS. And our money hasn't been going towards hospitals. It has been going towards government. Now, the key to saving Africa is loaning them money. There are many enteprenuers out in Africa that want to make their country a better place, but they need money. Loaning them money is not sending them money. Loaning forces the enteprenuer to get off of his lazy butt and put his money to good use. Eventually, Africans make a profit, and they succeed. This is not what happens when we send them money. When we send them money, the government intercepts it and wastes it. Loaning is the key. Africans have a 98% payback rate so far. www.kiva.org
We need to send money to Africa to save it from development issues

Here is a definition for the laziness that I mentioned in Round 1 from . http://www.merriam-webster.com...: Lazy: disinclined to activity or exertion For any sources referencing paragraphs, here is the article that I source: . http://online.wsj.com... Alright, first, I will show why our (as in, everyone in every continent besides Africa) money becomes so destructive to Africa: 1. People around the world send billions of dollars in financial aid to Africa. . http://psdblog.worldbank.org... (Paragraph 3) From here, the money takes three different routes: A. The Government 2. Any money that is sent to Africa in general goes through the government first, and the government taxes most or all of this money away from the people the money was intended to support. (Paragraph 10) 3. With taxes from the financial aid, African governments have no need to tax their citizens. (Paragraph 14) 4. "No taxation without representation. " . http://www.u-s-history.com... 5. No representation without taxation. (Inverse property) 6. Because Africa does not tax its citizens, it does not need to give its citizens representation. (Step 6 + Step 4) 7. All that a corrupt African government needs to stay in power is a continuous flow of financial aid. (Paragraph 14) 8. With this "free money", African governments do not bother to find more reliable and honest sources of income. (Paragraph 15) 9. African governments become lazy. (Definition of "lazy") B. The People 2. Some of the money from financial aid makes its way to the people. 3. Everyone in that part of Africa becomes a little bit richer. 4. When everyone has more money, monetary inflation occurs. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. Monetary inflation occurs in Africa. 6. The "Dutch disease" occurs in Africa. (Paragraph 22) 7. Africa's goods become too expensive for export, and housing prices go up. ("Dutch disease") C. Goods and Products 2. The rest of the world sends money to Africa in the form of food. (Paragraph 21) 3. People who already have food don't need to buy more food. 4. Africans have food. (Step 2) 5. Africans don't buy any food from African farmers. 6. African farmers no longer sell any food. 7. African farmers no longer get any profit. (Businesses need to sell their products to maintain a profit. ) 8. African farmers go out of business. (A lack of profit leads to bankruptcy. ) 9. Africa no longer has its own farms. 10. Africa relies on the rest of the world for food. (They can't get any from Africa. ) 11. Africa becomes dependent on the rest of the world. And so, when we send money to Africa, their governments gain more power, their economy experiences inflation, and they take a step backwards as they no longer can afford to farm. I eagerly await my opponent's response.
We need to send money to Africa to save it from development issues

Thank you Mongeese for posting this debate. Since my opponent provides no arguments i will focus on my own. Contention 1 Africa needs our support for diseases. 1 in 4 Africans have HIV or AIDS. providing funds to provide medicine and create knowledge for safe sex. If we provide money for docters and missionaries they will use it to save millions of lives and develop its medical staff. If we develop their medical staff they will develop as a continent. Contention 2
There is no evidence that a god exists

Decimation When everything in the universe is against what you're saying, then yes I will gladly pronounce that you have been decimated. ( You are even evidence for god.) Contradiction? 1. There is no contradiction since God can work within the laws of physics if he so chooses. He can also bypass those laws, because he is all powerful. If he could not bypass the very laws which he created, he would not be all powerful. So when it suits him, he can work within the parameters of nature whenever he so desires. God can also defy the laws of physics, again, because he is omnipotent. [1] [2] [3] Something from Nothing According to current Quantum Theory something can come from nothing. The explanation of why that happens has not yet been formed so the earlier statement by Pro should no be considered relevant. [4] EVIL The existence of evil must be present in order to have free-will. The Natural State As I said before god is outside of physics. Thus God Yes, the explanations is God, and always will be since quantum physics will fail to find a way to make something from nothing. (Sorry to burst your bubble.) Sources: http://answers.yahoo.com... [1] http://www.biblegateway.com... [2] http://www.salvationinjesus.webs.com... [3] http://answers.yahoo.com... [4]
There is no evidence that a god exists

for my evidence that god exists I will claim the fact that Something can't come from nothing. Simply by using this fact, I have just decimated Pro's argument. I believe it's clear that something divine, outside the rules of psychics must have created something from nothing. [1] [2] Definition of God: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe. [3] Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... [1] http://www.christistheway.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3]
North Korea is BEST KOREA!

North Korea north of wonderful sea where Kim-Jong Un (glorius leader) bathed ever so graceful and now water is sacred to all Korean. The water now flow with special moves and the seas are happy because they have been touched by him. The people bathe and swim in cool, calm water as much as possible to be as close to Kim Jong Un as possible. Except nobody can have boat to drive away. Must Stay in North Korea. If you float deep enough in water you see past missiles... er... I mean... failed attempt at destroying the glorious country of North Korea, the Best and Only Korea.
North Korea is BEST KOREA!

What you mean "South Korea" There is one Korea. Kim Jong Un said so. Are talking of Japan? Taiwan? Those no Korea. North Korea only Korea. Argument invalid. America's nuclear missiles are no match for our long range missiles! Those capitalist pig-dogs will be squished the next time they think North Korea is not BEST KOREA. Kim Jong Un is most honorable leader. You no speak of him like dat. North Korea: Best Korea, Only Korea
Dogs are better then cats

First of all, my opponent did not refute any of my arguments, so all of those carry through. Moving on to my opponent's case... His first contention was that cats are "quiet and non-annoying." However, cats can be just as annoying, if not more annoying as dogs in other ways. While it's true cats don't bark, they do have other habits that could be considered just as bad. For example, cats will do anything to keep you awake, and often act fickle and aloof at very bad times. Dogs, however, will come when they are called 99.9% of the time, and love you unconditionally, which makes them more reliable, and less annoying then cats. His second contention was that cats are independent. He also compared them to teenagers. He neglected to mention the fact, however, that teenagers can be infuriating. Many have "selective hearing", meaning they only hear stuff they want to hear, and cats are the same way. This is extremely frustrating to both parents and cat-owners, because it is blatantly showing disrespect and a disregard for whatever your saying. In this way, cats are much more irritating then dogs, and while they may not be needy like a baby, they have all the irritating qualities (which is a lot) of teenagers. His third contention was that cats are funnier and more entertaining. He also used AFV (America's Funniest Home Videos) as an example. If you have ever watched AFV, there are many funny dog videos as well as cat videos. Dog's antics are just as hilarious, if not more. Between chasing tails, looking at themselves in the mirror, and playing and inventing new games, dogs are extremely entertaining, as well as lovable, happy, and loyal. All in all, the perfect pet. His fourth contention was that cats are more thoughtful in their love. He states that because cats purr instead of park and leave you gifts of dead rodents, they are more thoughtful. Dogs, however, are much more thoughtful in general. They don't try to keep you awake, they never act as if they can't hear you, and they are always willing to comfort you and stay by your side when your having a bad day. Though they may not be as "quiet and thoughtful" about showing their love, there is certainly no shortage of love emanating from them. Between barking, licking, jumping on you, and all the other adorable things dogs do to show their love, you can't help but smile. Therefore, dogs are more loving, entertaining, interesting, and thoughtful in general.
Dogs are better then cats

Despite my opponents' beliefs, cats are obviously better. My first contention is that cats are quiet and non-annoying. You never hear a cat barking incessantly ll over the neighborhood, not even barking right next to you. Instead, they purr, perhaps the most relaxing sound on earth. In comparison to a chihuahua's screechy yips or a mastiff's thundering woofs, a cat is quiet and relaxing. My second contention is that cats are independent, and don't require the obscene amount of time and money dogs do. Cats are content to spend time on their own, and will hang out with you if you want them to. On the other hand, dogs follow you around and whine in your absence. While this may be "cute" and "loving", having a dog is like having a baby; you constantly have to take care of it and entertain it. Having a cat is like having a loving, responsible, caring teenager. They will love you and hang out with you, but are okay on their own. Also, they don't need walks, so you get at least an hour of your day back from having a cat. My third contention is that cats are more funny and entertaining. If you have ever seen a cat and a laser pointer, you know what i mean. Their antics are hilarious... all you need to do is look at AFV if you need proof. My fourth contention is that cats are more thoughtful in their love. They love you just as much as dogs do, but show it in a more reserved and thoughtful way. For example, if you have guests over dinner, a dog will jump all over them and lick their faces, while a cat will gently rub against their leg and purr, which, as previously established, is a relaxing sound. Also, they give you loving, if disgusting, gifts. They'll bring you mice, rats and squirrels, in showing utmost worship and love by sharing food, the highest honor a cat can bestow on another animal. Dogs are a bit less...thoughtful.
Dogs are better then cats

I affirm the resolution that dogs are better then cats. My first contention is that dogs are more loyal and loving, and are therefore better companions to humans. You want a pet that will love you unconditionally, and will forever be by your side, and dogs are more prone to that then cats. Even from as early as the cavemen, dogs have been right along side humans, helping them hunt, and warning them of danger. They are the perfect human companion, which history proves. My second contention is that dogs are more fun because you can teach them tricks like rolling over, sitting, and fetching the newspaper. Not only is this convenient and entertaining, but you are building a trusting relationship with your dog when training him. It is much harder to develop this kind of relationship with a cat. My third contention is that there are more types of dogs then cats, so everyone can find a dog that fits with their lifestyle. No matter whether you live in a small apartment, or on a large farm, there's a breed that will perfectly fit in. While there are hundreds of breeds of domesticated dogs, there are only just over 80 breeds of domesticated cats, so with cats there's no guarantee, but with so many different dogs to choose from, it's practically impossible not to find one that works for you. Finally, my fourth contention is that dogs contribute to society. Many dogs are part of police systems and/or work as assistance dogs for humans. These dogs have valuable talents, like sniffing out bombs or drugs when in a potentially dangerous situation, or helping people with disabilities do things they struggle with. For all these reasons, dogs are fantastic pets, animals, and human companions. There's a reason people have always said these lovable animals are "man's best friend".
Gun Control (Read entire opening statement before voting)

Didn't I say Violent/Murderous Criminals? I have spoken to many different people at my school who say that murderous criminals should not be able to have firearms at all. I know that some people make mistakes, and mistakes should be forgiven, but just because people have been forgiven or say you are sorry does not mean that the punishment goes away. if you kill someone, and then you say sorry, does that mean that the dead person comes back to life? What form of Gun control would you recommend?
Gun Control (Read entire opening statement before voting)

You cant blame a person say some on hurt a member of your family they might get away with It Blake dated a 13 year old squirrel beat him to a bloody mess because Blake is in his 20s.sqirrls cousin never dated Blake again because he was scared of squirrel. SEE SOME TIMES being a felon for good thing yes squirrel got sent to jail . Blake never did it again. I've seen cops do bad things kill people and such like in Clanton in jail a man was beat to death by a cop .NEVER REPORTED. And the cop still has a gun and job. Yes killing some one can be bad depending on the circumstances. Petty theft is a felony are they going to take my gun NO. all of this are examples that it can be bad .
Gun Control (Read entire opening statement before voting)

Please correct me if I am incorrect, You think that unless you are mentally insane we should have guns to defend ourselves against intruders and criminals, however, you think that being a felon says nothing about you, because you can be arrested for fighting, but that does not mean you are violent, and you could have been arrested for defending yourself. I think that being a felon does say a little about the person you are, If you got drunk and went for a drive and killed someone, that means you are irresponsible with your drinking habits, If you got high and killed someone, you are responsible for that, If you flat out killed somebody, INTENTIONALLY, and you go to prison for INTENTIONAL murder, then that could prove you to be mentally unstable, because I think that if you look somebody in the eye and say, I could kill you, and do so with a clear conscience and think it was OK, then you are absolutely bonkers. Yes you can be arrested for fighting, that could potentially be an issue for people who tried to defend themselves, but there is no need to beat the attacker to a pulp because of what he/she did, if it comes to it, knock the attacker out, and run away, if you use a gun to defend yourself, injure the perpetrator and then run away. As a guideline, we should injure attackers before you kill them.
Gun Control (Read entire opening statement before voting)

I want to start off by saying that I am horrified as school shootings and mass shootings continue, I want to send my condolences to the families who have lost loved ones in those tremendous acts of violence. I now want to address the fact that some people say that we need gun control, but I want to ask a few questions first. 1) If the government does in fact come and take my guns away from me, can they guarantee that lawless individuals will follow the same laws? 2) Can you guarantee me that the illegal persons will willingly turn in their guns? Or are the villains just going to pretend they do not have any firearms and then when the time is right, shoot up a bunch of people who cannot adequately protect themselves? 3) If all firearms are made illegal, is that going to take them off the black market? If so, why has that idea not worked with drugs such as methamphetamine, Heroin, psychedelic mushrooms/shrooms, or LSD? I will now propose an idea I think could work, and if this has already happened in your state/country, please let me know how it is working please let me know in the comments. I want to suggest that instead of the government seizing the firearms, we make background checks more in-depth, and people with certain mental instability, drug abuse, and/or violent crimes could not legally get their hands on a firearm. For people who want to know my side of this, I am a gun owner, and I say that extreme gun control, that is the kind where the government comes and apprehends any and all firearms in the home and workplace, is not the way to go. That is why I think my proposal/idea/thought could be a better choice. For the polls, votes are on whether you agree with the proposal. Thank you for taking the time to read this, I appreciate it. Dsavage1998
The Great Flood Was an Actual Historical Event

Do you mind if we do this resolution instead? Full Resolution: The great flood was an actual historical event. BoP is shared. Definitions: The Great Flood: "Noah's flood - (Biblical) the great deluge that is said in the Book of Genesis to have occurred in the time of Noah; it was brought by God upon the earth because of the wickedness of human beings."[1] Historical Event: "Based on or concerned with events in history."[2] Rules: 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed. 3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. 4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed from all moments after the debate has been formalized. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. Debate Structure: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by pro) Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (A few new arguments may be brought up, but nothing out of the blue) Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments) Sources: [1]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
The best firearm to use in a zombie apocalypse

Since my opponent is MIA, I'll just quickly throw up some reasons why I think the FN P90 would be a poor choice as a zombie gun. 1) Ammo is difficult to find 2) Lack of Spare Parts 3) Lack of available magazines 4) No back up iron sights 5) Clearing jams and reloading magazines is much slower than an AR-15 6)Poor range and takedown capability compared to much faster 5.56 7) Trigger is designed for a submachine gun, not for precision (and in the zombie apocalypse, accuracy counts more than bullet count) If my opponent wants to keep going, I'm all for it.
The best firearm to use in a zombie apocalypse

This is my first debate and I after having this on many a porch after a few beers I thought it'd be fun to try it out here. The rules for the debate are: Both sides choose a factual firearm (no Halo guns or pulse rifles) and we argue that our selection would be better than our opponents. Your weapon may be configured in any readily available fashion (muzzle devices, sights etc) but you must maintain the same caliber. Best - Most advantageous for surviving the zombie apocalypse Zombie - an undead corpse that is capable of walking at a moderate walking pace and can only be killed by destruction of the brain or its removal from the rest of the body Firearm - a weapon that fires a projectile at high speed by the violent expansion of explosive gasses Round 1 - Definitions Weapon selection and Acceptance Round 2 - Opening Arguments for your own weapon Round 3 - Arguments against your opponents weapon Round 4 - Rebuttal for your own weapon For this debate, I will choose a semi-automatic AR-15 chambered in 5.56 with a 14.5 inch barrel.
Drizyy Boy Sma vs. Scrub Reker Ruski Vodka Drinking Robert the Great XVII (1766-forever) .....

-Thank your for inviting me to this lyrical battle. By doing this you've accepted your fate, Ima gonna reck you son. Hey yo, I am comin' back in this one like Jesus resurrected, Right n' left I'ma be blazin' you, son. Don't forget this one... yeah. Your accepting your fate by challenging me to this one, I'ma be shootin' you like I shot these scrubber neckers back in Compton. Yeah, rest in peace.
Drizyy Boy Sma vs. Scrub Reker Ruski Vodka Drinking Robert the Great XVII (1766-forever) .....

Yo, I came from the streets, Yo raps are nothing but harmless beats. As for the Astana Hood shady, You could jack my lady, But yo ain't neva gonna jack this shady. I'ma the real S*&*, Make you feel it. I'ma comin' at you like a lyrical shotgon, seldom has there been such a sick lyrical vessel, make the game tremble as i spit on this beat in rhythmic my lyrics is untouchable like plutonium straight from the cranium verbal bullets pop lyrical syllable pump non stop.
Drizyy Boy Sma vs. Scrub Reker Ruski Vodka Drinking Robert the Great XVII (1766-forever) .....

Scrub Reker Ruski Vodka Drinking Robert the Great XVII (1766-forever) in da houuuuuuuuuuseesesesesesesesese! Yo uh yo mum so dank, she look lika tank, her face kinda mank. The Astana hood is shady, Satryarka, Kilkembai Street, Saula Bek, those streets look like gravy, coming from the hood made me jacked baby, and thas how i jack your lady. Supa hot, you look lika dot, and i hate you a lot, youre main bi#$h I bought.