BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexuals Are An Asset To The Overall Thriving Of The Human Species

I will be arguing that population growth is not the problem and that homosexuals do not help in the overall thriving of the Human species. Population GrowthI would like to focus the population Growth for the past 12 years. In the year 2000 the population of the world was 6,082,966,429 and now in 2013 the population of the world is at 7,124,339,094 and growing and by the year 2050 the population will be estimated to be at 9,346,399,468. When you look at the graph below you will see how the climb of the population is: My opponent alludes to that we need to lower the birth rate so that population can begun to stabilize, but by the next chart the birth rate has actually gone down in the last 12 years. Birth rate (births/1,000 population) It doesn't make any sense does it the Birth rate is going down, but the population is increasing. The reason for this is the advancements in medical practice has kept children alive longer. Now days if a preemie child that is given treatment early nearly has a 70% chance for survival while back even 12 years ago the child had a very little chance to live. With the medical treatment diseases don't kill like they used to and people can get medicine fast. Such discoveries like an Once-a-day HIV Pill,Targeted Drug Therapies for Cancer, Hormone Replacement Therapy,Advances in Treating Coronary Heart Disease, having vaccines for diseases and eliminating diseases from existence, etc. When you look at the death rate as seen here. Death rate (deaths/1,000 population) We Don't Need Population Control The fear should not be about overpopulation it should be for depopulation. Very low fertility is when a birth rate is below 1.5 children per woman. Europe experienced this between 1995-2000 when there birth rate was 1.42. The consequences of these very low levels of procreation are told by U. N. demographer Joseph Charnie when he addressed the Population Association of America on April 2, 2004-"Growing number of countries view their low birth rates with the resulting population decline and ageing to be a serious crisis jeopardizing the basic foundations of the nation and threatening its survival Economic growth and vitality, defense, and pensions and health care for the elderly for example, are all areas of major concern. " Europe has had problems with their birth rate and it has hurt their economy and nations strength. Society that have a low growth rate tend to fall and if the idea that homosexuals will lower birth rate will actually hurt human thriving. Conclusion Even with lower birth rates population still is increasing. Homosexuality has nothing to do with the thriving and if anything it hurts the thriving by not having children countries can face economic and overall society struggle. I look forward to my opponents rebuttal. Sources. http://www.indexmundi.com...http://www.indexmundi.com...http://www.indexmundi.com...http://www.infoplease.com...http://www.peopleintheworld.org...http://ir.stthomas.edu...http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...http://dsc.discovery.com...
One can be a Christian and not believe in Hell

"One can be a Christian and not believe in Hell""My opponent made this claim in the comments section of one of my debates. Let's put it to the test. A Christian is defined by Merriam Webster as[1] "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. " Hell is where non-Christians go to be tormented for all eternity. "^^This is Pro's Title/Premise and Opening Round. This is a very straightforward debate. A Christian is someone who professes their belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. Pro is trying to argue that those teachings of Jesus Christ do not include hell. This is it. Pro has made very compelling arguments, however they do not apply to this debate. We are not debating the existence of hell, soley if hell is part of the teachings of Jesus. Which I have proven they are. Pro has also tried state that Christianity is open for interpretation. To this I whole heartedly agree. This is why the definition was given BY PRO, in Round 1 giving a strict definition of "Christians" to avoid any confusion. Pro then decided to say Christian's don't have to believe in ALL of Jesus Teachings, only some. Despite Pro's erroneous points about hell and the fluidity of Christianity, Pro also tried to debate semantics. " First, because the definition of a Christian is those who *profess* to follow the teachings of Jesus, even if you buy everything else Con says wholesale you still vote Pro because one can *profess* to follow the teachings of Jesus while *failing* to actually believe them. "Pro is trying to argue that 'simply because you say you believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, you don't really have to believe in them at all'. This is pitiful debate practice to try and change the definitions mid-debate to prove a point. My first argument solidifes my winning of the debate. Per Pro's arguments about refuting my bible passages, while successfully raising doubt in the "furnace", there were two passages not argued at all. Luke 16:23King James Version (KJV) 23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. Matthew 25:46King James Version (KJV) 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. The mention of Hell, and eternal punishment, by Jesus, in the Gospel of the Bible, is simply enough to win this debate. To recap: Can one be a Christian, and not believe in hell? (Christians are defined by Pro, in Round 1, to being those who profess belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. )Jesus Christ has taught about Hell, and eternal punishment. After reading this poor attempt of a debate by Pro, who went against their own definitions, did not refute specific bible verses in which Jesus mentioned hell, and argued if hell even existed (Which is not part of this debate). ..
One can be a Christian and not believe in Hell

Thanks for the debate, Con. My opponent has entirely dropped my arguments about how Christian doctrine is open to interpretation. He's dropped my criticism of his verses suggesting that Hell exists. He's dropped my arguments about how Christians do not need to believe in Biblical inerrancy. He's dropped my argument about not having to believe in *every* teaching to agree with enough to identify with the faith. He's dropped my argument about religion being a very cultural thing on top of it's dogma and how we should believe people's self identification. He's dropped the verses I cited that suggest Universalism. He's dropped the argument that we should inherently prefer a Universalist intrepretation. Most importantly, he's entirely dropped all six of my arguments about how Hell contradicts the nature of God and the warrant about how we should uphold the nature of God over the doctrine of Hell. If Hell probably doesn't exist and the current mainstream interpretation of the Bible is deeply flawed, one can indeed be a Christian and reject the doctrine of Hell.The resolution is affirmed.
One can be a Christian and not believe in Hell

I ignored all of Pros arguments because they do not belong in this debate. This is not an argument about the existence of hell. This debate is whether or not Christians need to believe in hell. Pro is trying to play semantics... Christians are required to "profess" their belief in the teachings of Jesus. Yet because they just said it, doesn't mean they have to believe? This argument is nonsense. I have no further points to add.
One can be a Christian and not believe in Hell

My opponent has made some great points. Most of which I agree with.However, they do not belong in this debate.The premise of this debate is: "One can be a Christian and not believe in Hell""My opponent made this claim in the comments section of one of my debates. Let's put it to the test. A Christian is defined by Merriam Webster as[1] "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ." P1. Christians believe in the teachings of Jesus ChristP2. Jesus taught about heaven AND hellC1. Believing in Jesus consequently means you believe in hell.P1Pro's definition has already proven this to be true. Christians are anyone who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ.P2.Here are several bible verses in which Jesus speaks of hell.Matthew 13:41-42King James Version (KJV) 41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; 42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.Matthew 13:49-50King James Version (KJV) 49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, 50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.Luke 16:23King James Version (KJV) 23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. Matthew 25:46King James Version (KJV) 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.Most passages speak about the "furnace of fire, torment, and gnashing of teeth. All of these resemble the end of days and the suffering that is put upon those who do not have faith in God.There is also one direct quote that states "hell"C1.By believing in the Teachings of Jesus Christ you are a Christian.Jesus Christ taught about Hell.Christians must believe in Hell.All of my opponents points about the fluidity of Christian beliefs, and the existence of hell, and if the punishment fits the crime...Are all irrelevant. Pro has stated the rules of this debate is to define Christians by belief in Jesus Christ and his teachings.I have already filled my BoP towards this debate by proving Jesus taught about hell.
Should students be allowed to eat in class

Students should most definitely be allowed to eat in class. They eat breakfast at 7:30 am and are expected to wait until their lunch which can sometimes be as late as 1:30. That is 6 hours. The healthiest way for someone to eat is to eat something small every 2 hours. By waiting 6 hours one will get hungry, lose focus in class, and their grades will suffer. By eating, everyone will be sharp and more attentive.
Agnosticism is less ignorant than Atheism

Con has pointed out that Atheists lack evidence to prove there is a god (or something similar) therefore they say it does not exist. Con has also said (in regards to an example given) "the probability of its existence is miniscule. So miniscule, that we can safely say it does NOT exist with certainty.". With this, I know present another reason proving my topic: The con admits that the probability of it's existence is "minuscule" but then proceeds to say "We can safely say it does NOT exist with certainty". http://dictionary.reference.com... Certainty: 1. the state of being certain. 2. something certain; an assured fact. This is self contradictory as the Con has clearly stated that the probability is "minuscule" (Very small but still exists) and immediately afterwards proceeded to say "So miniscule, that we can safely say it does NOT exist with certainty.". The probability (no matter how small) is still there, meaning that the certainty of it's non-existence is in fact itself; non-existent. Sorry for nitpicking but please choose your words wisely. The con has also stated " They deny God because such a being has not been even remotely empirically verified; there is no evidence. This is a very important point, and one that many people miss. The burden of proof is NOT on the atheist, but on the theist to provide evidence. Since there is literally no evidence for a deity (unless you use miracles), atheism is the default position.". I would like to remind con that the debate topic is: Agnosticism is less ignorant than Atheism. If an Atheist will only believe what they can perceive or comprehend then they are truly ignorant. There are some concepts that human beings simply cannot comprehend. Atheist believe in death quite easily, despite the fact that they, themselves, cannot fully perceive it. You can't touch, see, smell, hear or taste death, yet Atheists still accept it despite their lack of knowledge about it. The same applies to God (or another deity) but Atheist will argue till the cows come home about how it can't be proven and there is no evidence to support it's existence. I can't comprehend the existence of something like that nor will i disregard the evidence against it, but i still believe it might exist. Nothing is absolute. Words, feelings, perceptions, beliefs, statements, theories, facts, senses, nothing. None of those things are absolute. Not even existence is absolute, but just because i can't prove the existence of the keyboard in front of me, doesn't mean i will stop typing on it. Because of these things, I believe that the open mind of an agnostic person is far less ignorant than that of an Atheists. I look forward to your response.
Agnosticism is less ignorant than Atheism

I just wanted to start a short debate on this topic. I believe that Agnosticism is less ignorant than Atheism because Atheists abolish any possibility that a god, deity or higher power exists in the universe simply because they can't comprehend it. I honestly can't comprehend it either but i'm open to the fact it may be true. If you really think about it; it is very possible that existence never had a beginning. At this point we currently know that the earth hasn't been around long (compared to the rest of the universe) and we know that the planets and bodies that surround us eventually began. A long time ago there was one point in time when nothing we know existed. No planets, no gravity, no stars, no moon, no oxygen, just nothing. Something had to have begun somewhere, to think otherwise is ludicrous. That is why i hypothesize that the creation of what we perceive as existence began with some kind of outside force or third party. One thing i do find easy to believe is that some kind of mass of energy that has existed beyond existence itself had some kind of part in the forming of our universes and galaxy's. I like to think of it as a she (although it would probably be gender less, my idea of it would be something that creates life and matter). Let's call her Eve (pun intended). Eve is everything and nothing, Eve is perfect, Eve knows everything and nothing, Eve has always existed but never existed. Eve is a complicated chick. Eve one day decides that she would create a plane of existence with certain chemicals and elements and let nature take its course. She's probably done the exact same thing an infinite amount of times before which leads me to believe there are an infinite amount of exact replicas of our plane of existence, and some. Due to the fact that Atheists refuse to believe there is no kind of god/deity/higher power i believe that while Agnostics segregate themselves from conventional religions, Agnostics still have a more open mind on these kinds of things as opposed to Atheists who bluntly deny the existence of a god or anything of the sort. (Holy crap i could create my own religion and everything) I reckon i have a good shot of winning because i can't think of a single thing to dispute or disprove me theory. I now hand this opinion to the person who decides to accept this debate. I would prefer an Atheist for the sake of personal opinion and belief but it's okay if you aren't.
The War On Drugs

Just because the war on drugs isn't working, doesn't mean we should stop fighting. If the drugs didn't produce any side effects and which did not pose any threat to user's life, I would completely agree with you. It's just the same with terrorism. We aren't particularly 'winning' against it, but still doesn't you stop fighting. Quoting Fusco from Person Of Interest " Nobody ever aid we would ever win, doesn't mean you stop fighting." The war on drugs doesn't mean the banning of drugs altogether, it means the banning of harmful and addictive drugs. An addiction is a bad habit. If your'e body can't cope without the particular substance throughout a particular period, then that person has become addicted to it, will eventually be the cause of some health risk down the line. And the most immoral and life threatening addiction (I believe) is drugs. Cocaine, Opium, Marijuana, Heroin and many others. THere many other drug addictions which involve drugs on the 'legal' side . Such as Vicodin, Asprins etc. But what you say is right, the people who spend a lot of time home alone and who are unemployed are usually the one's who get addicted. Therefore we need to tackle this problem in another way, in an indirect way. We need to create more employment opportunites and other effects to oncrease employment rates. Perhaps that is the solution.
The War On Drugs

Yes, thank you!PSYCHOLOGY OF DRUG ADDICTIONOur original understanding of addiction came from an experiment where a rat was put in a cage with drugged water and one with clean water. The rats soon became addicted to the drugged water and overdosed themselves in almost every case. However, these rats were alone. In the 1970s, a professor named Bruce Alexander tried a new experiment. He still had the drugged and the regular water, except this time, the rats were in a cage with every pleasure possible, with other rats, and with toys. In those "rat parks", addiction practically disappeared.THE VIETNAM EXAMPLEIn the Vietnam War, 20% of the soldiers used heroin. However, when they came back home, 95% of them did not use drugs. This stands in direct contradiction with the standard views on addiction.THE WAR ISN'T WORKING Since the war was declared, the rate of drug abuse has accelerated. Why? Because we are locking people in prison cells and fining people who are already lonely and poor and unemployed. The problem is that people who are isolated and having a difficult life, who have resorted to drug use, are being jailed and fined instead of getting treatment and being integrated into society.
The War On Drugs

I can understand. I will disregard the forfeit. I admit at first I thought it was one of those glitches. 1. The policy of jailing and fining people who are already poor has not lead to skyrocketing of drug usage. It is the excessive amount of adult activities such as going to bars, clubs , and parties that have exposed people to the illegal use of drugs. Nobody is fighting the usage of a drug for medicinal purposes. But, it can be misused also. The same can be said on terrorism also. We are winning that war, so lets just stop, but we can't afford to. Because we are fighting this war, at least some teenagers refrain from using drugs. If we stop this too, the floodgates will open. 2. Will addicts be integrated into society? When they become better they will be, eventually, over time. They are not being integrated into the society because the common people do not know the mental situation the person is in. But when the person becomes better, the addiction will just be a black dot on his resume. 3. Again, let them get rehabilitated, then they will be received well in the society. But it is harder for them to get accepted. This is where family and friends come in, they have to help the addict to cope with his problem and abstain from using drugs again. Why should the normal public bother about drug addicts? They have their own problems to attend to. But as you said the lonely people are the ones who get addicted, and their friends too are normally addicts. Therefore they have made the arrest of addicts legal, so that they can go, for a period of time, without using drugs. 4. The prison population is going to be steadily increasing no matter what. Doesn't matter if you make arrests of drug addicts or don't. Crime rate has been on the rise. If you let drug addicts walk around uncontrolled, then that will lead to major rise in the use of drugs. Which will lead to more crimes, and more prison population. No matter what prison population will continue to rise. 5. Drug addicts receive rays of hope from various places, it is their choice whether or not they accept it. As you said lonely people do not have any family, therefore the people trying to help have no right whatsoever to impose their will for them to stop using. 6. Stopping drug addiction is so much more harder as there are no replacements. One HAS to stop using. There are no other alternatives for them to use. The war on drugs is relatively young in nature. Therefore it is going to take sometime for it to start winning. But that DOES NOT mean that we should stop fighting . Therefore the War on Drugs is GOOD.
The War On Drugs

I am sorry for the forfiet, as I was out for a few days sick. Please ignore the forfiet voters and Pro, and I will continue with my argument.1. Not only is the war not working, it is making the problem worse. Our current policy of jailing and fining people who are already poor and isolated has created new problems. What we are doing has in part resulted in skyrocketing drug usage ratings. Fighting a useless war that takes billions of dollars away from anti-poverty programs whilst making the porblem it tries to solve worse does not make sense.2. Drug usage does pose a health usage, and this is why it needs to be adressed. Having said this, our current policy is preventing addicts from being integrated into society.3. While drug addiction is an immoral and life-threatening practice, it should be noted that many people who are isolated and many young people are doing drugs. Are we going to ruin the lives of people who are already living through horrible conditions and prevent them from ever advancing in society?4. Also, I would like to point out that the skyrocketing prison population in the US is not in least part do to the war on drugs. Not only is this a strain on our prison population, it has also hurt the addicts mental health at a time when our mental health system is substandard.
Wal-Mart is good for America

As this argument is about how good Wal-Mart is for America, I would like to focus on America as a whole. While you may be correct in stating that Wal-Mart offers low wages and poor benefits, this is an issue with employment. Remember that Wal-Mart is not obligated to provide the country with jobs. Wal-Mart is obligated to provide the country with goods and services in exchange for profit. In addition, people seeking employment do not necessarily have to choose Wal-Mart. They may seek employment elsewhere. Your point about the poverty line rising seems to be a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Do you have any information that shows a legitimate and indisputable correlation? I'm not quite sure where Huntington is, but if Wal-mart built a new store outside Huntington, it is probably still within the jurisdiction of some other county. It still pays taxes, just not the same taxes, and not to Huntington. I have addressed your arguments and will present mine. Capitalism is a fairly simple economic system. A free market in which appealing to the public will earn profit. The fact that Wal-Mart is doing well as a business in and of itself shows that the American public is benefiting from it. Otherwise, the damage would be reflected in the stock market and sales figures. Wal-mart generates money, and that money doesn't simply sit in a vault. The money is used to enhance the corporation in order to provide better service so that they can make even *more* money. In this case, everyone wins except the people who, as you say, work at Wal-mart. But as I have responded, those people are more than welcome to work elsewhere.
Wal-Mart is good for America

Thank you for joining this debate, I will first state a couple of my points, Wal-Mart does more harm than good by paying lower wages, decreased health care benefits and squeezing competitors out of the market. With the "squeezing" part, Playing the same old game when Wal-Mart comes to town just won't cut it in most cases. Also when Wal-Mart came to US counties from 1987-1998 the poverty lines all rose drastically. Wal-Mart built it's new Mega-Store right outside Huntington so it didn't have to contribute to the taxes of that county, what kind of neighbor is that? I will state more of my points in my next argument. Thank you,