BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The current law limiting truck drivers to 60 or 70 Hours on duty per week should be repealed.

You may begin your argument in round 1. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations currently state: "No motor carrier shall permit or require a driver of a property-carrying commercial motor vehicle to drive, nor shall any driver drive a property-carrying commercial motor vehicle, regardless of the number of motor carriers using the driver's services, for any period after" (1) Having been on duty 60 hours in any period of 7 consecutive days if the employing motor carrier does not operate commercial motor vehicles every day of the week; or (2) Having been on duty 70 hours in any period of 8 consecutive days if the employing motor carrier operates commercial motor vehicles every day of the week."[1] This law should be repealed. References: 1. cms.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/395.3
Kneeling in the NFL

Yes, I agree with you. The National Anthem means so much to the people of America. And I admit, as I thought about it, my belief in disrespect was partly incorrect. So let's wrap things up, shall we? The National Anthem is important. But I think we can agree that the law is just as important as the Anthem. And if kneeling in the NFL gets you fired (as Donald Trump recommended people to do), well, that makes kneeling illegal, doesn't it? And that means the law isn't fully functioning. Freedom of Speech. I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's important. It's one of the things that makes democracy so unique. You are perfectly allowed to dislike kneeling during the Anthem. But they have a right to kneel. The NFL players can voice their opinions. They are sending a (somewhat) peaceful message that they are being treated unfairly compared to others. There's nothing wrong with that. Yes, people can see this as disrespecting the flag. But why? They aren't trying to disrespect the flag. That's not their purpose to kneel. I'm sure NFl players love their country. Yes, the Anthem is there to honor people that have fought for the country. But the law is there to keep it together. And if the president, the leader of the country, is condemning NFL players for kneeling, that's not good. It's like he is saying that law doesn't apply in this kind of situation. Since when does the law not apply in a situation where the PRESIDENT is involved? The players have a right to kneel. They have a right to say what they want. In the Anthem, it says "O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave." FREE. It just says that in the Anthem. America is a land where people are free to do as they wish, as long as there are laws and consequences. Is kneeling during an Anthem illegal? No! Home of the brave. Those NFL players are brave, definitely brave. They are shrugging off insults not only from people, but from the leader of the country (president Trump). I don't think many people would be brave enough to do that. So, I think that kneeling during the anthem is fine. Open your minds people. Try to understand what those NFL players are going through. Freedom of speech. Never forget that. You don't have to like people kneeling during the anthem. But you can't insult them for practicing a right as an American citizen. Be proud that you are in such a country. Be free and be brave. Try to listen and understand before shutting off your mind to other ideas. I thank the Con for joining and participating in the debate. I wait for your final reply.
Kneeling in the NFL

All right, so you're going to the topic of patriotism. Well, I think that NFL players are patriotic, no matter if they kneel or not. Look, they are risking life long injuries for football. They are cases of NFL players having severe brain injuries from multiple concussions. The NFL players know all this. But they still play. The players' jobs are to entertain football fans by playing as best as they can. They are playing football, the legendary American game, for the American football fans. Why on earth would that be unpatriotic? They're not trying to be disrespectful. The National Anthem? The American law is just as important as the anthem, probably more. And if the American law is not fully letting people have freedom of speech and equal rights, then does the American Anthem really provoke patriotism in all citizens? If the law doesn't work, the country won't work. Like I said earlier, the NFL players aren't trying to be disrespectful. Some people just think it's disrespectful because they think they are purposely trying to be disrespectful. It's a misunderstanding. Everyone has to find out a way to make everyone happy, but that won't happen until people understand one another. It's just that most of us aren't trying to do that.
Kneeling in the NFL

I would say your opinion on it not being disrespectful is false. Think of it, men/women sacrificed their own lives for this country. The National Anthem is to respect the fellow man-kind that protect us. I know why they kneel, but if their going to protest, that's fine with me but they shouldn't do it during The National Anthem. It makes men that fought in wars and died look at us from the afterlife and scratch their heads thinking,"Why the f### did others and I sacrifice our self when this is the way we will be treated afterwards."
Kneeling in the NFL

Please do not back out of the debate by forfeit. Let's try to finish. .. So, let's start. Kneeling in the NFL is not disrespectful. I strongly believe that nothing is truly disrespectful if you aren't purposely trying to be disrespectful. Imagine that you have met an alien. You wave hello, but the alien thinks this is disrespectful because in the alien's planet, waving might mean "let's fight. " But I think we can all agree that this isn't disrespectful. You weren't trying to upset the alien. Same case when you insult a friend. You might call them ugly as a joke because you are friends. However, you friend is insulted and thinks you are being disrespectful. All these things mean the same thing. Unless you are purposely trying to be disrespectful, it's just all a misunderstanding. Now the NFL players aren't trying to be disrespectful on purpose. They love their country. But at the same time, the NFL players are trying to send a message. They want to be treated equally, especially the black NFL players. They think that they aren't treated fairly. There's nothing wrong with this is there? America is a country with freedom of speech. That's one of the things that make democracy so special and unique. We all have a right to express our opinions. And that is why you, Con, have the right to disagree with me. I await your reply. Please read what I have written and make rebuttals. Thanks.
Authoritarianism will come back to dominate the world.

Authoritarianism is ineffective. Authoritarianism is defined as,"government is run by a leader who heads a central agency or a group of authorities." However, Authoritarianism is ineffective since the people do not have a say in their government. This can lead to rioting as the people do not get a voice. It is a narrow road that may lead to a dictatorship. As well as, these groups of authorities are unaware of the current culture while citizens know their surroundings better.
God does not love you

In the comment where I showed my interest in debating this topic, I wrote, “I can show from scripture, that God does not love me” [1]. This is what I will be demonstrating in this debate. As CON has made the claim that “God does love you [me],” he has accepted the burden of proof; however, I am happy to share the burden. If CON can demonstrate that God loves me, he has met his burden. If I can show, by scripture, that God does not love me, I have met my burden. God Does Not Love Me Quran 3:31-32 says, “Allah does not love those who refuse to obey Him and His Messenger” [2]. Since I am not a Muslim [3], I refuse to obey Allah (God), and his messenger (Muhammad). Therefore, God does not love me. Sources: [1] . http://www.debate.org... [2] . http://www.islamicstudies.info... [3] . http://www.debate.org...
God does not love you

My position as Con is against the idea that God does not love you. I say God does love you.Please, No atheistic or agnostic arguments. If you say you do not believe in God, that's ok. If you say there is no God to believe in, that is atheism. If you say you cannot be sure if God is there or not, that is ok. If you say nobody can be sure if God is there or not, that is agnosticism. If you say God is not God or God is less than God, that is an atheistic argument and forbidden for this debate. If you say God is a force or an impersonal presence in everything or any such distraction from God simply being who He is, God, who is the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY, creator of all and of every thing, then you are playing semantics in an attempt to make an atheistic or agnostic argument and that is forbidden in this debate. I will not post any arguments if my opponent in any way insinuates that God is not God. If my opponent does not understand the word "God" and insists He is undefined, then there is no way to know what this debate is about and I will consider my opponents approach to be nonsensical and not worth my time to argue against.If you must challenge the definition of "God", please decline this challenge. I will not be bothered in the debate to argue the definition of "God". The word is a proper noun and the first letter is capitalized as a proper noun. The meaning is understood at a third grade reading level. I do not want to argue with anybody who seems confused about a word that is easily understood at a third grade reading level.If you need the word "love" defined, I ask that you decline this challenge. If you love somebody, you know what love is. If you know somebody loves you, you know what love is. If you think it is possible that you could love somebody or that somebody could love you, you know what love is. No semantics, no atheistic arguments, no agnostic arguments. I find myself funny. I'm serious. I hope this debate will be enjoyably thought provocative if not funny for all. Please keep it civil and honorable in respectful manners.To my opponent.......God does love you. I'm against the idea that God does not love you. Whoever told you God does not love you was not telling you the truth. God loves you. What could possibly make you think God does not love you?
God does not love you

As in the previous round, most of what CON has written need not be addressed. I will only address one point, and then move on to my overall closing thoughts for the debate. God vs god It seems that CON is trying to claim that the Christian God is senior or superior to the Muslim God, when he accused me of trying to redefine God to something “lesser,” which would be “suited for Islam. ” I would like to make it clear once and for all, that I am not trying to redefine anything. CON failed to define God at the beginning of this debate, so if anyone is trying to redefine a term, it is him. CON is correct that the capitalization of the word “god” is done as if a proper noun, but he is mistaken if he thinks it only applies to his preferred deity. It is appropriate to capitalize the English word “god,” whenever we are talking about a specific god, be that God YHWH, Allah, or Odin [1]. Following this convention, when CON used the capitalized version of god, he was not specifying a particular god, leaving me free to argue about any deity I chose. Closing Thoughts This has been an interesting debate, and I thank CON for making it so. Unfortunately, CON was not able to move past his complaint that I was redefining a term which he failed to define in the first place. I freely accepted a share of the burden of proof, and fulfilled my burden. CON failed to fulfill his burden, so I leave this debate in the hands of the voters. Sources: [1] . https://owl.english.purdue.edu...
God does not love you

"God", captiized as a proper noun being the name of a specific person, is a third grade English word, easiily understood by a third grade child. It is my opponent who is trying to redefine God into a being lesser than God suited for Islam. This redefinition of God denies that God is God and is atheistic in that is says God, The LORD GOD ALMIGHTY, is not there, and the complicated lesser god is given the name "Allah". I made a mistake in allowing this opponent to accept this challenge. The debate was not supposed to be about the definition of "God". I stricty forbid in the rules any challenges to the definition of the word "God". My opponents assertion that Allah is God is a violation of the rules. The voters of course will give points to my opponent saying my opponent wins the argument showing God does not love him. If my opponent and the voters want to believe God does not love them, I'm sorry for them, they are wrong.God loves you. That is the theme of this debate.......the argument was not supposed to be God does not love you VS God's name is Allah. Next time, I will specfically excude changing God's name to Allah for this debate, and no quotes from the Quraan alloweed as it is an unreliable source penned by a desert robber who molested chidren as his wives and hid in caves too much, afraid of the people he had offended, and many times changing his own writings in order to keep his tail frm being cut off.God shows His love in that He gave His only Son to die in our place, The Son of God is God the same as the son af a man is a man. He died for my opponent even though my opponent insists Jesus is not God and He does not love him. He does love my opponent and wants my opponent to beleive on Him in His resurrection and be saved from the fire of Hell. To say God did not die in my place and I do not believe on Him is an atheistic argument which leaves you with no way to be reconciled to God from the death your sin has caused you. If you don't care that God took your death in Jesus Christ, you are rejecting His love and you will be rejected by Him if you finalize your death in sin. He will always love you, even if He can do nothing for you but let you have the punishment you deserve. He wants you to accept His offer of forgiveness through His resurrecion, He wants you to brust Him and believe on Him and be saved from the fire of Hell. He loves yo uunconditionally. Don't blame Him if you reject His love.......you can't blame Him if you are rejected by Him after you reject His love.......you can try to blame Him, but it won't do you any good.
God does not love you

You are trying to change God to Allah. God is God. Allah is not God, I don't care if it is the Arabic term for God. Allah is the god of Islam and is not THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY. This debate is not about Allah. God is God. If you have to reduce God to something less than THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY you are making an athistic arguement. God loves you or He would not tolerate you. He wants you to believe Jesus is God and He died in your place to pay for your sins, the price you cannot pay by following Islam except by paying in the fire of Hell. If God Himself did not pay for your sins, your sins can never be paid for because Muhammed was a sinner the same as you and the Quran rejects God's payment for your sin when He died in your place on the cross. God loves you, but you are simply saying you will do as you please and expect God to honor you when you have rejected Him though He died in your place on the cross 2000 years ago. He loves you and offers you pardon based on the fact that He paid your price so He can pardon you if you will repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ who is God and stop trying to reduce God into Allah.
God does not love you

The debate here was me taking the position of saying God loves you..........I argued contrary to the statement that God does not love you. You are saying God does not love you, I'm saying God loves you. I guess you win, you want to believe God does not love you, go ahead, If you call that a win, you can have it. I still say God loves you.You have violated the terms of this debate. Islam is murder. God is not Allah. Muhammed was a liar. Jesus Christ is God. The Quran is a book of lies. All lies are spawned by the father of lies who is Satan.The debate here was me taking the position of saying God loves you..........I argued contrary to the statement that God does not love you. You are saying God does not love you, I'm saying God loves you. I guess you win, you want to believe God does not love you, go ahead, If you call that a win, you can have it. I still say God loves you.
God does not love you

I am confused by CON’s response to my argument. In the first round, CON wrote, “I will not be bothered in the debate to argue the definition of "God," and he goes on to say that this word is “easily understood at a third grade reading level,” and yet he seems to be unable to address my claim based on the particular God I am discussing. Also in the first round, CON wrote, “I will not post any arguments if my opponent in any way insinuates that God is not God.” It seems that CON is violating his own rules. CON has also made the claim that, “Islam believes in a false God,” which is a claim for which he needs to offer evidence. CON also makes the confusing comment, “Allah is not God. God is God. God is not Allah.” Perhaps CON is not aware, but the Arabic word, ‘Allah,’ translates to English as ‘God’ [1]. In fact, if you were an Arabic speaking Christian, you would use the word Allah. I have demonstrated my resolution, and I await CON’s comments in the following rounds. Sources: [1] http://translation.babylon.com...
Contradictions in the Bible

My opponent has took it upon himself to explain how the contradictions I present, are actually consistent and non-contradictory. I will now present my selection of Biblical contradictions. ========== Contradiction 1 ========== "The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name. " - Exodus 15:3 =/= "Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen. " - Romans 15:33 ========== Contradiction 2 ========== "God is love. " - 1 John 4:8 "Love is not jealous. " - 1 Corinthians 13:4 =/= "I the Lord thy God am a jealous God. " - Exodus 20:5 ========== Contradiction 3 ========== "Thou shall utterly destroy them - the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee. " - Deuteronomy 20:17 =/= "Thou shall not kill. " - Exodus 20:13 =========== Contradiction 4 =========== ". .. every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. " - Genesis 7:4 ". .. my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless. " - Exodus 22:24 =/= "Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen. " - Romans 15:33 "God is love. " - 1 John 4:8 ----------------------------------- I will end there for now. I look forward to my opponent's response. Sources: . http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
Resolved: Boys make better friends than girls.

My opponent stated in the previous argument that "boys change their attitude and fight a lot". I do not agree with this at all. Boys do not change their attitude, in fact, they are known to be calm, cool, and collected while girls over react and gossip (as I said before). If you were a girl, and had a friend who was a male, it is less likely that you will fight with them than with your best girl friend. Boys often abide by the motto of "never hit girls" so even if you were to get in a fight (which, like I said before, is unlikely) he would not harm you. It would be a cool exchange of words. My opponent also stated that "girls care for themselves and the other person". This is sometimes true. They do care for other people but on some occasions, they care just a little bit too much. I have noticed this happen with some of my friends. Many times, a girl will point out your flaws, instead of your good qualities. This ends up hurting the other person's feelings and ends up in a negative relationship that is not enjoyable. In conclusion, boys make better friends than girls because they don't over react, hold grudges, or cause gossip. They are fun to be around and won't cause drama. It's nice to have a guy friend that you can lean on instead of arguing with the girls. Spelling/Grammatical corrections: Her last presentation, she stated chose. *choose "men as the best to be friends" The sentence would flow better if you said "men as the best candidates to be friends" Personal Note to Opponent: Hi! It's been fun to debate with you, and I really like the topic you chose. It is very interesting and has good arguments for both sides. I am actually neutral on this subject and think that girls and boys both make good friends. Thank you for debating with me, I needed the practice because I just signed up for my debate club. Anyway, thanks and good bye!
Resolved: Boys make better friends than girls.

What you said in response to my argument about men seeing the surface of a statement: "That is because men are more calm" (calmer would be incorrect grammar, by the way) is what I am trying to say, men are calm so they will not over react about things. If you got in a fight as girl to girl, your friendship would most likely be ruined for a long period of time because girls over react. In a fight as boy to boy, pretty soon after you finish the argument, they will usually make up or just forget about it and move on. Girls are known to hold a grudge and not move on for a long time. A. That makes the point that girls care for themselves and the other person because normally, girls would not go into fights unless it was for protection. You stated at the end of your rebuttal, "Girls solve problem, boys avoid them" (Girls solve problem is ALSO incorrect grammar. It would be "Girls solve problems") That statement is incorrect. Not all girls solve their problems, in fact, most of the time they create problems. Females tend to gossip which spreads and eventually comes around to "bite" them. A. That statement is only for mean girls. My last presentation: What I don't understand about people is why they chose men as the best to be friends. What my opponent has yet to mention is that boys change their attitudes and fight a lot. Would you want to be in the middle of that?
Resolved: Boys make better friends than girls.

What you said in response to my agruement about men seeing the surface of a statement: "That is because men are more calm" (calmer would be incorrect grammar, by the way) is what I am trying to say, men are calm so they will not over react about things. If you got in a fight as girl to girl, your friendship would most likely be ruined for a long period of time because girls over react. In a fight as boy to boy, pretty soon after you finish the argument, they will usually make up or just forget about it and move on. Girls are known to hold a grudge and not move on for a long time. You stated at the end of your rebuttal, "Girls solve problem, boys avoid them" (Girls solve problem is ALSO incorrect grammar. It would be "Girls solve problems") That statement is incorrect. Not all girls solve their problems, in fact, most of the time they create problems. Females tend to gossip which spreads and eventually comes around to "bite" them.