BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is at Least One Problem with the Notion of a Catholic (Christian) God

The purpose of this debate is to have a conversation on this particular issue. Rules: 1. Definitions are non-binding, but encouraged (but the meaning in this first post is more-so binding). 2. No disparaging (to "regard or represent as being of little worth" (Google Dictionary) ) the other side unless it is used in the context of an argument, and then its use ought to be minimized (The purpose of this is to prevent ranting against the other side; I know that some people are passionate against the Christian God, but I want a more logical, organized debate). 3. I want a more logical, organized debate, so the content should be judged by how effective the logic is. 4. Rules may be changed if both sides agree, and on which rounds they apply to. The default for which rounds would exclude rules being applied retroactively.
Resolved: Just governments ought to require that employers pay a living wage.

Let me explain my logic to you, because you seem to be a little slower than everyone else: 1. I am not against gods will. So therefore I am not gay or evil. 2. Jewish is not the right religion. Catholicism is. 3. If Catholicism is right, then therefore Jewish is not. 4. This website is for debating no for rubbish like you. 5. I want to debate someone who has at least some sense. I hope you understand me. If you would mind never debating me again, that would be fantastic. Thanks.
Resolved: Just governments ought to require that employers pay a living wage.

I am going to explain answer to you with easier logic. I am sorry, but unfortunately you seem not to be able to grasp this one. Step by step : 1. I did not called you gay, because you want to debate. 2. I am not a homophobe, since I didn't said anything bad about gays. 3. I said that IF you are against God's will, THEN you are gay and evil. 4. My religion is right, therefore I can bring it wherever I want. I hope you understand me.
Resolved: Just governments ought to require that employers pay a living wage.

Okay, What? I think you are the definition of a homophobe. You just called me gay because I want to debate. If you aren't going to debate, then why accept this debate. You are the worst debater I have experienced. This isn't a religious debate, so don't bring religion into this. Rebuttals: "God is all everybody needs. Nobody needs to do anything. It is all God's will. If you are against it, then you are gay and evil(simple logic)." I don't see his logic, so therefore, I should win this debate. Just forfeit if you aren't going to actually debate. I extend all my arguments from my constructive speech.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should face the death penalty

Con's last argument was certainly his weakest in this debate and I will show his shortcomings. 1) Con says he had a typo? I do not know what to believe, I don't know if he is trying to save himself from a typo that was incorrect or a statement that got jumbled. May I remind con juries MUST be approved by both the prosecutor and the defense so it would e the most unbiased trial as it can. 2) Con says that "Yes he (Tsarnaev) is responsible for his own actions that is true. I am asking that you see the circumstances he was under and under that stress people make rash decisions and sometimes those decisions could be made with better judgement. " Nevertheless, he alone is responsible for his own actions. It's not like he was a slave who was forced to be making his decisions by his master, but even then his decisions are his decisions. 3) When I say that the death penalty would bring emotional closure Con states he disagrees and then he references a movie. Movies are dramatized even ones that are based on a true story. 4) Con says that, "Even if convicted to death he is not executed for 10+ years. By that time people will forget about him. " Did people forget Bin Ladin? Do you think people would look at their missing legs and forget him. That seems childish to me. 5) You say that he had no affiliation to a terrorist group, however he and his brother went to Chechnya in Russia. Only after that they showed changes in their behavior. Think of the possibilities that would have happened. 6) You say that, " I only approve of the death penalty in extreme cases where the nation's security is at stake. " Who knows if he isn't dangerous to the nations security. Look at his crimes! To say this isn't an extreme case is almost ludicrous! 7) Again, you say that, "By definition A crime, is an act harmful not only to some individual, but also to the community or the state (a public wrong). Such acts are forbidden and punishable by law. Therefore he is charged with only the two crimes meaning at most he committed two crimes at most. " I fail to see the logic in that. Like I said, if he was being charged by the state he would have had more charges placed on him. 8) You say that, "There have been countless cases that have changed US law completely! " Really? If you would have named one of them I would have believed you. 9) Con has made a case against the death penalty by making statements at first then rebutting all of my points. If one were to read one would find that cons arguments are jumbled and nonsensical. Actually, con broke one of his own rules. He did not list once source that wasn't Wikipedia. I believe I have presented my case accurately and well.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should face the death penalty

My rebuttal will go as follows I) Charges against Mr. Tsarnaev The federal government is filing charges against Mr. Tsarnaev that are going to be tried in a civilian court but are related to terrorism. These charges are "Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction" and "Malicious Destruction of Property Resulting in Death." (1) According to the United States Criminal Code: A person who, without lawful authority, uses, threatens, or attempts or conspires to use, a weapon of mass destruction shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, and if death results, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life."(2) II) Mr. Tsarnaev is not the common criminal It is my own belief that the U.S uses the death penalty too frivolously. Many of the people who are sentenced to death are often charged with the murder of one or more people. To condemn them to death is silly to me but lets how many people Mr. Tsarnaev killed or injured. He killed three and severely injured 260 people;a noticeable number of those people lost their legs.(3) III) Rebuttal Against Cons Fourth Argument When I got in trouble at school and my teachers punished me I always tried to say, "but my friend did it too!" My teacher would always reply with this saying "if your friend jumped off a cliff would you jump too?" Dzhokhar may have been influenced but it is him alone who is responsible for his own actions. Dzhokhar is responsible for all of the casualties in my view because he helped manufacture the bombs. It was just his brother who planted one bomb and he planted the other. Tamerlan did get punished. He was shot by police officers and got run over by his brother, resulting in death! (IV) Rebuttal Against Cons Fifth Argument If Mr. Tsarnaev is not convicted he can't face the death penalty, therefore your argument is invalid. V) Public reaction If there was a headline saying that "BOSTON MARATHON BOMBER ESCAPES DEATH" I am certain that their would be a huge amount of public outrage. The victims of the bomber would be the ones who would be outraged the most. The number of casualties is certainly appalling. You say, " The movement for the abolishment of the death penalty will be that much closer to prevailing." I couldn't disagree more. The movement would suffer if that happened because the public would not be happy with the outcome. It is the public who elects the congressmen and the president, and it is those two branches who have the power to abolish the death penalty. VI) Conclusion I think that pro's argument would more suit an argument against the death penalty in general instead of this special case. I would trust a jury determining weather Mr Tsarnaev would face the death penalty or not, but I believe the federal government should push for it. Mr Tsarnaev did many heinous crimes, and because of the number of crimes and their severity. It is my personal belief he should face the death penalty. (1) http://www.boston.com... (2) http://www.law.cornell.edu... (3) http://news.yahoo.com...
Bimetalism is better than Fiat Money

Con is stating particular instances through history where monetary systems have succeeded for a while and where they have failed. One can find instances of societies failing with anything they do. This is because humans are flawed and make mistakes. Allowing the government (composed of people) to change how much money is circulating is giving them too much power. This could be good or it could be disastrous, depending on the people making the decision's judgment and motives. I am not arguing that societies of great size and scope should switch to a Bimetallism system. The debate was which was a better system. A newly forming society would be better to use Bimetallism because it would mean there was a limiting force controlling its growth so it couldn't be artificially manipulated to grow beyond its optimal size. Bimetallism would keep society more under natural laws which would be good.
Bimetalism is better than Fiat Money

Money Pro claims that “money is the resource for trade” and that “the amount of money in existence will regulate the amount of trade”. As I stated in the previous round, Money is a medium of exchange, and the only relevance it has on the market is its effect on the price. The monetary supply does have a relationship to the aggregate demand. More money decreases the velocity of money, which increases the aggregate demand for goods and services. A greater aggregate demand drives up prices, and increases economic output. A decrease in the money supply reduces aggregate demand. When transactions increase, and the monetary supply remains the same, it means there is an increase in aggregate supply with no change in aggregate demand. The increase in the interest rate decreases the monetary demand, by encouraging savings, and by deterring investments in the stock market. The Monetary Supply Pro claims that bimetallism is better because the monetary supply is limited to the value of gold and silver, but Pro’s only reasoning for this, is that money becomes self-regulating. As I have already pointed out in the previous round, this is not always a good thing. If the amount of money is limited to the supply of gold, it cannot expand to the growing monetary demand. This would lead to an increase in the velocity of money. In other words, the same unit of currency would circulate more frequently within the economy. When the velocity of money increases, it creates deflation, and increases the interest rate. An increase in the interest rate hurts the stock market, and encourages savings. The changes in the supply of gold & silver are not reflective of the changes in aggregate transactions. The best monetary policy is a monetary supply that can expand in proportion to changes in the volume of transactions. Bimetallism can’t do this, but fiat money can. Outside Forces Pro claims that Bimetallism prevents the manipulation of outside forces. In actuality, outside forces can still manipulate the monetary supply under bimetallism. For example; fixing the exchange rate between gold and silver, will increase or decrease the monetary supply accordingly. Another example would be to fix the price of the metals themselves, rather than allowing a floating exchange between the currency and the base. If you fix the exchange between precious metals and the currency, there is a greater risk of default, because the reserves might not be enough to support the currency. If you allow a floating exchange, people would have less faith in the currency. If the currency was coins rather than promissory notes, it would be far less convenient to conduct trade.
Bimetalism is better than Fiat Money

It is better for a society to use a Bimetallism monetary system, rather than a Fiat monetary system. In a Bimetallism system, there is a finite amount of money. Money is the resource for trade. The amount of a resource regulates the use of said resource. The amount of money in existence will regulate the amount of trade. Having a finite amount of money will create a closed system. In a closed system the elements of that system will self-regulate to make the most efficient use of resources. In Bimetallism the amount and speed of trading will be self-regulating. The amount and speed of trading dictate the size and speed of a population's growth. Bimetallism will allow a society to self-regulate its growth to its most efficient size. This would be good for a society. A Fiat monetary system allows money to be created. Allowing money to be created creates an open system. An open system allows an outside force to affect the elements inside it. Allowing an outside force to affect a system removes the systems ability to self-regulate itself. When a system cannot self-regulate it is at the mercy of the outside force that can affect it. A Fiat monetary system would cause the society using it to be at the mercy of the outside force that could create and destroy money in order to manipulate it. This would be bad for a society.
Casey Anthony rightfully was found not guilty

Ok, this debate is intended to be done by people who know law. I am a law student at Boise State, I am looking for people who are no just giving opinions but can use law steps to argue. Also must know info n case. My basic argument is this: Casey Anthony was rightfully found not guilty of the more serious charges set before her in the court of law.The reasons for me coming to this conclusion is this: 1: There was no evidence presented by the prosecution to show for sure that Casey had actually killed her daughter. 2: Activity or actions do not justify guilt. Yes I will admit some of the actions conducted my Casey were quite questionable after Caylee's death. However there this doesn't prove any thing was done wrong by the person. 3:No murder weapon. There was never a actual cause of death or murder weapon produced, so how can you prove if the person did it? Thank you to whoever joins in this debate. I also would like to point out tha the last round can not be used for new evidence.
Casey Anthony rightfully was found not guilty

My opponent keeps coming back to the fact that the jury needs to use there own reasoning to find the verdict. That is all fine and good, however how do we expect 12 jurors to convict a girl who by all right was never proven beyond a reasonable doubt did any crime? And yes I am sorry for just talking abut first degree murder. The other charges also had no standing in them when looking at the evidence presented by the prosecution. Her activity: Yes Casey Anthony acted quite strange after her daughter had died. However that in no way proves guilt, neither does her lying. The only thing that will prove Casey Anthony guilty of any charge besides lying to police because that was clearly proven is hard evidence that puts her at the scene. Car: Yes chloroform was found to be in the trunk, but as a test proved the larger portion of air in the trunk was gas. Also keep in mind that Cindy sprayed an entire bottle of fabress in the trunk of the car, chemical decomposition of that product was found to also produce chloroform. Also keep in mind there were many people who had access to the car, so the fact that the smell of death was found i the trunk of a car that she uses proves that she did it. There were other keys for the car not just hers. The main thing you the voters and subsequently the jurors in this case needs to look at is the fact that there is huge amounts of doubt in this case. Beyond a reasonable doubt clearly says that if there is a reasonable doubt to the defendants guilt you must find the defendant not guilty. Unless the doubt is unreasonable. There is no clear evidence that proves she did it, making it a reasonable doubt that she did the crime, showing what she did in a months time, showing the activities she partook in and the tattoo she got does not in any way prove guilt. It does prove that she is a typical 20 some year old out with her friends partying. Not the acts of a murderer. In the court of law we can not expect a jury to convict a girl just based on her actions during a period of time. The killer was never truly identified or the murder weapon. Coroners for the prosecution couldn't even determine the cause of death. The last thing I am going to say is this: You the voters and the jurors can not find this person guilty on a pure hunch from her actions.
U.S. Grading System should be challenged

Attention: This argument does not attack all classrooms, but does attack those classrooms that insist on multiple choice tests and assignments with defined answers. Students learn and think in different ways. Some students are better at certain things than other students. Students should therefore all not be graded on the same scale. Grading has become more of a competition between students. A child can put so much effort into studying for a test and then end up getting a terrible grade. The grading system has simplified teachers' work in the classroom. A set key of answers defines the student's success. Teachers give a test and only base the student's grade off of the answer key they have in front of them. But do we ever think about the amount of effort the student may have put into studying for that test? Their effort should come before the quality. There is an effort-based grading scale at Benedict College of South Carolina. For freshman, they are graded 60% effort and 40% knowledge. According to the college, they believe that students can get more feedback from the professors that would allow him/her the ability to improve in a certain area. Students seem to be more willing to retain information that they aren't cramming down at the last minute, but material that expresses their effort. It makes no sense that I can fake my way through a class the whole semester by never understanding the material but passing all the exams. Our system has become too dependent on quantity and less on the quality of a student's work. Reading, writing, or math may never be a student's forte, but a willingness to try their hardest is what should truly count. Students should also be graded on their social and emotional learning. SEL skills include self-awareness, working in teams, decision making. These are both things that will propel a student forward in his/her success. If we show students that we are paying attention to these sorts of qualities, they are more prone to develop these skills. As Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, "character is higher than intellect." We are teaching our students material that they may never be able to apply on the job. The skills and traits we instill in them would be much more beneficial from a long-term perspective. It seems pathetic to think that we are evaluating our students by letter grades and not a better system that allows them to apply their work ethic in the next class.
Birth Control is Immoral

~Definitions~ birth control: the practice of preventing unwanted pregnancies Source: google definitions immoral: not morally good or right, unethical Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com... There are many different types/forms/methods of birth control, however in this debate we will be focusing mainly on the morning after pill, condoms, and/or daily pills, as these are the most common and well known methods. For the sake of this debate, abstinence will not be considered a "birth control". Rules for Instigator (me) Round One: Rules and Introduction Round Two: Arguments Round Three: Rebuttals Rules for Contender (opponent) Round One: Argument Round Two: Rebuttals Round Three: write "no argument as agreed upon" Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7 point deduction. Good luck.
if gay marriage should be allowed or not allowed in the US

yes good luck too you too. 1. It"s Not Natural Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning. 2. Other People Will Be Gay Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. 3. It Will Lead To Other Crazy Behavior Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. 4. Marraige Isn"t Open To Change Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn"t changed at all. Women are still property, blacks still can"t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal. 5. The Sanctity of Marriage Will Be Broken Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed. The sanctity of Britney Spears" 55-hour-just-for-fun and Kim Kardashian"s 72-day-highly-profitable marriage would be destroyed. 6. Marriage Should Produce Children Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn"t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren"t full yet, and the world needs more children. 7. Gay Parents = Gay Kids Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children. 8. It Is Not Supported By Religion Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That"s why we have only one religion in America. 9. A Male And Female Role Model Is Required Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That"s why we as a society expressively forbid single parents to raise children. 10. It Will Change the Foundation Of Society Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. We could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven"t adapted to cars, the downfall economy, or longer life spans.