BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Contingent Christian pacifism is theologically sound

Thank you for accepting, Con. I look forward to an edifying discussion.My caseI shall be laying out a very broad overview of my beliefs in this opening round.To begin with, I do not believe that God is diametrically opposed to violence. Any reader of the Bible knows that the pages of the Old Testament are rife with violence. Exodus even goes so far as to refer to God as "a man of war."[1] Why, then, would a follower of God reject violence? That there are multiple facets of God's personality is not debated. It is referred to as the Trinity and is as orthodox a position as the divinity of Christ.[2] It should come as no surprise, then, that God may act differently at different points in history, immutable though he be. To call up just one example of this in the Old Testament, God spoke to Job through a whirlwind[3] and to Ezekiel in a whirlwind.[3]Moving on, we see a radically different facet of God in Christ in the New Testament. It is this example that we are given to emulate. To quote 1 John, "Whoever says he abides in him [Christ] ought to walk in the same way in which he walked."[4] And how did he walk? "When they hurled their insults at him [Christ], he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly."[5]Within the framework of covenantalism, this line of reasoning is bolstered by the many prophecies that speak of the Messiah changing the way that men shall handle conflict. This well-known Isaiah passage serves as an excellent example: "He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore."[6]Round conclusionI have now presented the basic tenets of my beliefs on this subject. I hope that everything was clear. If Con wishes me to expound on anything, he need only ask.Sources1. Exodus 15:32. http://www.theopedia.com...3. Ezekiel 1:44. 1 John 2:65. 1 Peter 2:236. Isaiah 2:4
Pick Debate Topic

1) I am all for the legalization of marijuana. From what I understand; there are no harmful side effects, it isn't potentially fatal like meth, heroine or cocaine. It, also, helps with concentration on topics and school work. "The annual American death caused by drugs a year is tobacco at 400,000 deaths, Alcohol 100,00 deaths, all legal drugs 20,000, aspirin 500 and marijuana caused no deaths." (http://www.studymode.com...)2)Marijuana would in fact bring the US out of its $17.075 trillion debt. (Debt source: (http://www.washingtontimes.com...))3)I have friends who smoke weed (marijuana) and they are perfectly fine. They are not addicted as they can drop it at anytime and not be tempted to do it again. I've seen this from personal accounts and many others have said that they don't become addicted to the drug (I like to call it an herb as that is what it is). 4) *This is a reference to #3According to Psychology Today, marijuana is mildly addictive, but that is not important as drugs like, tabbacco and alcohol are highly addictive. Source from Psychology Today:(http://www.psychologytoday.com...)5)Marijiuna has advantages. Those advantages are pain relief during cancer ( Jeremy R. Johnson, MBChB ), treats symptomatic relief of spasticity in multiple scelerosis ( Christine Collin, MD ) and relieves chronic neuropathic pain for HIV ( Donald Abrams, MD ). SOURCE: (http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org...)
Pick Debate Topic

I would like to debate whetever drug use should be legalized and I apologise because I can't structure paragrahps for some weird reason . The war on drugs have been going on for decades now it has cost as billions and thousands of innocent people were put into jail for a victim less crime but humanity has been using drugs for thousands of years of human history it is a part of human culture that we are not gone rid of by criminalizing it from Alexander the Great's soldiers rubbing opium on their feet to march longer to modern age cannabis use criminalizing people for drug use will not stop people doing it in fact it makes more people do it because it gives you a thrill . Now i will explain why legalizing drugs is a good idea 1. Violance&Black Market Why do we associate drug use with violance? It is because people who want to use drugs have to go to a black market to buy them this market is unregulated and uncontrolled different factions involved in drug trade are fighting against each other by legalizing drugs we would give people the chance to buy drugs from a more reliable source the government or a regulated private sectors this market is regulated most people would rather buy from it than from a drug dealer in a dark alley that has no knowledge about business managment , The black market would collapse 2.Freedom In a truely free society people shouldn't restrict the freedom of others this is very relevant to the issue of banning drugs as drug usage is a victimless crime i consider banning it to be immoral. 2.Safety Why do so many people overdose on drugs? for example heroin apart from its addictivness is almost harmless for your body the reason why people overdose on such drugs is because like i explained before they are forced to buy them from an unregulated market where drug dealers can put stuff into the drug to increase the value therefore customers are not sure how pure it is and might inject too much causing an overdose. 3.Price Drug addicts often how to commit crime to get money for their drug but if drugs were legalized the prices would go down and it wouldn't be such a hard job to get your next fix as it was before your life can be at least a tiny bit better 4. Prison Overgrowth This point is really relevant if you are living in USA , 5% of the worlds population lives in USA yet 25% of all prisoners in the world are in USA around 80% of all drug aressts were for simply having drugs on you this is putting innocent people in prison and over crowding prisons that have to be paid for.
courts have the responsibility to create racaliy balanced school

Race should not be used as a basis for school assignments. Administrators took responsibility for all educations. Brown promised equal education opportunity. Competitive workforce in global economy. Court ordered desegregation plans do more harm than good. Schools should not be used for battle grounds. Fighting would just show the kids that fighting on school grounds or anywhere else is ok. In 1974 court ordered desegregation plans was not the only strategy that could have been desegregated Boston. Boston's neighborhoods are racially segregated. Black and white students left school to protest in the streets rather than stay in school and get educated.
Abiogenesis Is Sound

Full ResolutionAbiogenesis is sound. ProHas the BoP and 3 sets of 10,000 characters with 3 days to post per argument to AFFIRM that abiogenesis is sound and refute Con. ConHas also 3 sets of 10,000 characters with 3 days to post per argument to NEGATE that abiogenesis is sound and refute Pro. Definitionsabiogenesis - organic molecules and subsequent simple life forms, on earth, first originated from inorganic substances. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...sound - based on reason, sense, or judgment. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...life - the condition that distinguishes animals, plants, fungi, protista, archaea, and bacteria, from inorganic matter, including the capacity for metabolism and reproduction. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Venting

That pampers thing was funny, the dick thing too. Last time I heard those I laughed so hard I fell off of my dinosaur. You have still not addressed the point I am making. A debate is not for the purpose of agreeing with yourself and feeling like you won a battle you were too scared to fight. A debate is made for arguments and growing not only your thoughts and ideas, but the thoughts and ideas of others. Also, am I a princess, or do I have a dick? You can't have both. I bet you look like a fart. You are a pee pee head. Your Mom is a respectable woman, but she raised a nerf football looking eggo. Alright honey babe?
Venting

Sweet heart, You"re like a bag of Pampers. Self absorbed and full of crap! Also, I would tell you to go f yourself but I"m pretty sure you already have, Also you have to be the one who smells bad, you have to be smelling yourself. I don't even know where the hell you live! And babe, I don"t sugarcoat crap, I"m not Willy Wonka. Also, I am allergic to pineapple, So I ain't no pineapple on pizza person. Second, Its always okay to have support, obviously you haven't had much experience with it. Last but not least, my little princess, Didn't you know that acting like a dick wont make yours any bigger. And sweet heart,
a pregnant woman shouldnt always have the right to an abortion

at least later in the pregnancy... sometiems infant's rights should be prioritized. a mother assumed the risk of pregnancy, and then, she assumed the risk of carrying the child for many months. to be clear, i'm focusing on later in pregnancy. but there and earlier, an argument could be made that earlier in the pregnancy she forfeits her right to not be pregnant by assuming that risk. much like... if you cause an accident, and the victim's body is somehow temporarily attachedk to your body, hypothetically speaking... a reasonable person would say the tortfeasor must at least wait a few months until they can be separated. that analogy could be extended to later in pregnancy, and then topped off with the fact that she didn't bother to terminate when it was more debatable whether it's a person or not. (if it's debatable, who should decide? the governmnet? why not the mother who is more proximite?) when it was morally grayer. later in the pregnancy though, it's not debatable about personhood. if there's no significant health or life or very very significant emotional problems, aborting the infant in the womb is no different than aborting it when it is born. the only difference, that the mother is hindered, is trumped by the risks she assumed, and that leaves nothing to justify abortion later in the pregnancy if an exception doesn't apply.
a pregnant woman shouldnt always have the right to an abortion

i should have stated clearer that i do not wish to debate the issue of life early in the pregnancy. later in the pregnancy, such as a week before due date, the baby in the womb is no different than the baby outside the womb. is it not? thus it meets the qualities of life mentioned. does it not? self defense. you did not respond to the issues of assumption of risks, and the analogy i posed? she assumed the risk of getting pregnant by having sex, so at least later in pregnancy, it is a fact we have to consider. it's not like she was just laying there, not engaging in sex, and a fetus suddenly attached itself to the mother. also, she also didn't abort when it was morally grayer earlier in pregnancy, so she assumed the fact of being pregnant, if an exception doesn't apply. and, the analogy. if you caused an accident and caused someone to be dependent on you in general or physically attached to you, and you couldn't separate the people for a number of months, no one who can be taken seriously would say the person who caused the accident can just kill the victim. how is this analogy different than the debate we are having? con argues that murder and the morality or lack thereof is something that is culturally derived as wrong or not. sure. but this debate is clearly about what 'should' be the case, should the mother always have a right to an abortion or should she not? this means you have to argue what you think, and why etc etc. pointing out that morals are culturally derived doesn't add much. plus, on the culture point, it is generally accepted that murder is wrong. to point out that it's not always considered wrong is at best an academic point. for effective purposes, i and almost everyone agrees that murder is wrong, so, given that, how should it be applied to the abortion debate? population control. this is really a secondary issue. if we can tackle the murder morality issue, self defense etc, then this issue will follow. if murder is wrong, and abortion cannot be viewed as always self defense, then using it as population control wont make sense. if murder isn't wrong, or it's always self defense, then population control might as well follow. woman's body. this gets back into the assumption of the risks point, and the analogy that i provided. if you can't negate those, then the woman's bodily rights can't prove superior to the life of the child. it hinges on those prior points. the thesis of this debate.... the mother shouldn't *always* have the right to an abortion, has not been clearly negated or argued against. most who comment on this debate say it's unfair by me, cause the latitude made, almost on one agrees in absolute terms that the mother should be able to abort any time she wants. does con seriously contend that she should be able to abort a baby a week before her due date (with no commonly thought of exception) but just because she wants to?
Gun Bans

It is a shame that my opponent forfeited his R2. Due to the fact that My opponent failed to defend his points in R2, I shall simply carry them to my R3. R2 Arguments that my opponent failed to defend against. Contention A To say that without guns we have peace is beyond illogical. In fact the opposite is far more likely, and is statistically proven to be so. According to my opponent's numbers, the UK is in worse shape than the US. My opponent forgot to take population in to account. According to my opponents number's, 1 in every 406 (Rounded down from 406.2) people will be killed with a gun in the UK. In the US, 1 in every 507 (Rounded Up from 506.7) people will be killed with a gun. I will now use my opponents quote, "This is because people are allowed to carry these lethal weapons freely." Contention B I find my opponents argument very contradictory at various points. I will now compare quotes. "As it is well known by this point, America is still in a financial crisis." "Hundreds of thousands of weapons are created for the public, which would not be need if this ban was enforced..." My opponent is correct in both statements, however he failed to "connect the dots". Yes, we are in a financial crisis, but the sale of guns will only stimulate our economy. The more guns their are, the more products used. The more products used the more jobs created. The more jobs created, the more money is flowing. The more money that flows, the more money to buy guns. According to statistics, the more guns, the more peace. "Without guns, war would be illogical for lack of anything to fight with." My opponent has a very flawed argument at his hands. War would be highly logical if he had nothing to fight with... For the enemy. Any nation that wishes to harm us, or for that matter, any rebel group in America that wishes to overthrow the government. My opponent also fails to realize that the police are supplied by gun manufactures as well. "Therefore, guns are detrimental to the society both physically and economically..." Summery: Societal effect of guns: Positive Economic effect of guns: Positive Contention C The need for security would go up by far. Without Police, National Guard, or even a 9MM under your mattress, you are unarmed, and the criminal is armed with a gun. A criminal is someone who fails to obey the law. This question is directed at my opponent. What makes you think over 400 million guns can be tracked down, when over 50% aren't registered? You should realize that this is the only way for criminals to not have guns, and even then they can produce them. Think this question over hard, it will decide the debate. Overall Summery A. Gun Bans are unconstitutional. B. Gun Bans can only cause more war than peace. C. Crimes rise with gun bans. D. Our military, and police force would suffer greatly with gun bans. E. The UK is in worse shape than us when it comes to gun crimes. Sources: http://www.gunsandcrime.org... http://www.reuters.com... http://www.gunsandcrime.org... http://www.gunsandcrime.org...
Gun Bans

As my opponent shall use "Peace" as his stance, I shall use logic. If my opponent doesn't mind, I'll stick to my format. I find that it is far more organized. Contention A To say that without guns we have peace is beyond illogical. In fact the opposite is far more likely, and is statistically proven to be so. According to my opponent's numbers, the UK is in worse shape than the US. My opponent forgot to take population in to account. According to my opponents number's, 1 in every 406 (Rounded down from 406.2) people will be killed with a gun in the UK. In the US, 1 in every 507 (Rounded Up from 506.7) people will be killed with a gun. I will now use my opponents quote, "This is because people are allowed to carry these lethal weapons freely." Contention B I find my opponents argument very contradictory at various points. I will now compare quotes. "As it is well known by this point, America is still in a financial crisis." "Hundreds of thousands of weapons are created for the public, which would not be need if this ban was enforced..." My opponent is correct in both statements, however he failed to "connect the dots". Yes, we are in a financial crisis, but the sale of guns will only stimulate our economy. The more guns their are, the more products used. The more products used the more jobs created. The more jobs created, the more money is flowing. The more money that flows, the more money to buy guns. According to statistics, the more guns, the more peace. "Without guns, war would be illogical for lack of anything to fight with." My opponent has a very flawed argument at his hands. War would be highly logical if he had nothing to fight with... For the enemy. Any nation that wishes to harm us, or for that matter, any rebel group in America that wishes to overthrow the government. My opponent also fails to realize that the police are supplied by gun manufactures as well. "Therefore, guns are detrimental to the society both physically and economically..." Summery: Societal effect of guns: Positive Economic effect of guns: Positive Contention C The need for security would go up by far. Without Police, National Guard, or even a 9MM under your mattress, you are unarmed, and the criminal is armed with a gun. A criminal is someone who fails to obey the law. This question is directed at my opponent. What makes you think over 400 million guns can be tracked down, when over 50% aren't registered? You should realize that this is the only way for criminals to not have guns, and even then they can produce them. Think this question over hard, it will decide the debate.
Gun Bans

Interesting, let's take a spin on my morality, shall we? ;D I affirm today's resolution, that the outlawing of guns would result in a positive impact of the society. Before I continue, I would like to remind the voters to be impartial, to vote for whoever displays the argumet. I don't want a false win, and I'm sure my opponent does not either. Now, with my case. My value for the round shall be peace, for what we are attempting to discover today if what action will best satisfy society, and if a society i at peace is it not satisfied? My value criterion, therefore, shall be utilitarianism, for if the greatest amount of individuals are served their good, would they not be peaceful, thus making a majority of the society peaceful? To augment my points I offer three contentions for the round. Firstly, I would like to point out the significant increase in deaths due to the use of guns. In the year 2001, 150,000 gun homicides were reported in the U.K., which happens to have gun control implemented. This number is meager compared to the 600,000 homicides within the U.S., a number fourfold that of Britain's. This is because people are allowed to carry these lethal weapons freely. With a simple store-bought license, they have access to a deadly weapon, one which can be used from afar without any knowledge by the victim. The results have shown, with less guns comes less death. Therefore, less violence occurs, a desire shared by all, and through that peace is achieved, because withoutvolence lies peace. Secondly, guns are an unncessary department to which money is being spent by the government. As it is well known by this point, America is still in a financial crisis. Companies failing every day, the stock market ravaged. Why would it be logical, in this bleak time, to frivoulously spend government funds?Hundreds of thousands of weapons are created for the public, which would not be need if this ban was enforced, tereby saving tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. Also, if all guns were banned, where would the main weapon of war go? Without guns, war would be illgocial for lack of anything to fight with. Therefore, as opposed to setting aside a budget for huge agencies such as the army. Instead, peace talks and cooperation could be accomplished, all while saving funds. Therefore, guns are detrimental to the society both physically and economically, and their removal would ring about cofort and peace. Thirdly, and finally, the need for sectrity would be greatrly lessended. With the removal of the gun comes the removal of a possibility of long-distance attacks. Thus, everyone's safety would be improved. Also, if no one can attack with a gun, it would be illogical to HAVE to fight back with a gun. The situation does not necesitate it; therefore, it is extraneous. I wish my opponent best of luck and will see him in Round 2. *Note, this was done a 2 in the morning.
Gun Bans

I (Con) will argue that a total Gun Ban (The Outlawing Of All Guns) would only be a detriment to society. My Opponent (Pro) shall argue that Gun Bans (As Previously Defined) have positive effect on society. I will now take the exactly 109 characters to thank the voters in advance for voting according to who should win. I (Con) will now argue to my fullest beliefs and to my greatest potential. * Sources are to be provided at the end of the debate (round 3). Contention A To place gun bans on any US manufactured firearm would harm our economy and our military. Our gun manufactures take out contracts from the military, and use the concept of Supply and Demand in order to supply civilians. Do to the fact that these manufacturers rely on the Private sector, these companies would fail. With no companies to supply arms, our military would suffer as well. Contention B To think for a second that gun control is possible, you would have to be crazy. In the USA their are 90 guns to every hundred people. That is roughly 271 Million guns (According to source, math not checked) that you would have to track down. A different source even states "only 41.3% of the registered owners actually admitted to gun ownership." Contention C 2.5 million lives saved by guns per year. That is two times the population of Hawaii! I can only close this contention with a quote by Thomas Jefferson. "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." I wish luck to my opponent. Which seems kinda illogical...