BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christians in the US are not oppressed

I would be happy to argue either side of this debate, myself being an agnostic. Now, there are a number of ways to look at this, but I would like to propose, that not only Christians are being repressed, but we are repressing ourselves in the scope of political correctness. I will have two main arguments for why I believe you should also vote CON. Contention 1: With recent civil movements, Christians are the ones being blamed With so many recent fights for justice from just about every community one could think of, Christians are the ones being blamed for being close-minded. This has caused the image of the church to come under fire, when in fact, churchgoers are not opposed to most of these moments. According to Christian Post, almost 3/4 of 1,400 people surveyed said they thought churchgoers as "hypocrites". In most cases, Christians are not even opposed to what's going on. An article from the International Business Times found that in demographics other than evangelical white males, Democratic voting has increased. This is showing that although there are a few negative-thinking "Christians" don't taint the entire religion. A few bad eggs don't spoil the dozen. Contention 2: All hardline groups are being persecuted in a PC World In a strive for being politically-correct world, both our traditions and our culture are taking a hit. We are now teaching our children that saying "Freshman" instead of "Ninth Grade Student" is wrong and immoral. Now, Christians are not the only group under fire in this category, but it is a great proportion. Being politically-correct is a good thing, but there is a point where it begins to get ridiculous. Teaching the next generation to always favor being PC instead of speaking their minds is putting their autonomy and freedom of speech at risk. With concluding my first constructive, I would like to reiterate to my opponent and all those voting that Christians have held a majority in the US, but since the rise of counterculture against religion, Christianity and other fundamentalist beliefs are being oppressed. We are not alone in this, but regardless, this cannot stand in a country where the freedom of religion is guaranteed.
Christians in the US are not oppressed

RebuttalThe countries in which Christianity is banned is not in US. It is also against religious freedom. While oppression by a minority may be possible in some cases, In USA, there is religious freedom. Oppression caused by a minority really isn't possible or very unlikely when everyone is living under democracy. If someone mentions they are an atheist/agnostic, they get more hate then they do if they mention they are Christian. Like I stated before, even though there are atheists who tend to attack christianity, that is a minority. Oppression is a strong word and just some atheists and agnostics attacking christianity really doesn't count as oppression. Christianity actually may have an influence over public life. Atheists and agnostics may actually be the ones facing more oppression than Christians. Since Christianity is everywhere and there are some people shoving Christianity down people's throats, Christianity is defininately not under attack in the USA. I would like to also note that the Christians who claim about being oppressed are the Christians who shove their religion down people's throats. Additional Arguments "In god we trust" In god we trust is printed on US currency. "One nation under god" is also a part of the Pledge of Alliegance. This is just one way Christianity may impact public life.Insane amount of ChurchesThere are more Churches in the USA than resteraunts. There are hundreds of churches all around you, just look up churches in google maps. While there should be more Churches in USA than other religious buildings due to the majority of the population, the amount right now is just insane.Churches are exempt from taxationTitle says it allAtheists being banned from holding public office There are seven states that ban Atheists from holding public office. There are none banning Christians from holding public office. The group closest to being oppressed are atheists and agnostics. Not to say they are oppressed though since oppression is a pretty strong word.I rest my case,
should people be illagal

If you're not a person, then what are you and why are you here? If you're a alien, I suggest you get back on your spaceship, go back to where you came from before the CIA come and find you, take you hostage, and do "sexual" things to your vital organs. ON-TOPIC: People shouldn't be illegal because if there are homeless people living in the world, with the seven billion people on the planet, and the million that are cops, won't have space to put all of the people if they're illegal. The world would also be a hell hole.
Breastfeeding in Public

Technically I have nothing against breastfeeding in public, and I support it fully but I do understand why some people could be offended or put off by it, so I would also argue that it should be a courtesy to do it privately. The breast is seen as, not just an organ for feeding, but also as a sexual organ (Which is a separate debate) Even though the woman has every right to breastfeed in that public place, it can be embarrassing for other people and, perhaps, even embarrassing for the mother.
Breastfeeding in Public

While in theory, and in a perfect world the idea that a woman was to breastfeed without causing themselves or others embarrassment would be pro and undisputed. Logical even. I agree, breastfeeding should not be considered embarrassing, yet it still is for many. Yes women should be allowed to breastfeed in public if they wish, as long as they respect other people's feelings in the same way as they should her privacy. It is using an organ which is otherwise sexual in a place were everyone can see, or assume and it may simple be uncomfortable for a person. This is not a fair position to put someone in. In a much more extreme way, the use of disturbing images of abortion in an attempt to change peoples views is similar. While the people have every right to show said pictures, does that automatically mean they should? Because said pictures could shock young people and children. That is a very extreme example, yes, but in a smaller way the same principle exists when breastfeeding in public. That being said, Women should have the right to breastfeed were ever they need to but a private option should be a priority because you do not know how people are going to react. I find the act of breastfeeding extremely intriguing, yet I still find it awkward when a female family member bares her breast to feed her baby, and should I feel embarrassed? Yes I should because the embarrassment makes me give her the privacy she deserves.
Breastfeeding in Public

It should be up for the mothers to decide. If they feel uncomfortable and vulnerable in public they can do it in private, but if they feel the need to do it while in a public place they should be able to without people staring and telling them to do it in private. If people do not like it they should just look the other way. I personally do not feel that anyone should feel embarrassed knowing a woman is feeding her child the natural way rather than using the formula. As for the style of clothing, I am personally against the tight and lack of clothing the women wear, but even if you aren't if you are ok with one woman wearing a shirt that barely covers her then you should be ok with a mother feeding her child for a while.
Breastfeeding in Public

Yes, many people try to do it discreetly, but many people know what they are doing and, so, feel embarrassed. Yes, we were once naked, but at that time we did not have to contend with embarrassment in the way we do now. As I said, the breast is seen as a sexual organ. As to the "revealing" clothes people choose to wear, you must remember that these people may choose to wear these clothes but as soon as they took it upon themselves to strip naked, they would refuse because of embarrassment. Women who breastfeed in public are not revealing themselves in a sexual way, therefore its embarrassing to other people because it feels as though the woman is making herself vulnerable. And, in a way, she is, because breastfeeding in nature is a very dangerous time for the mother and the young due to predators who will use this lull in the mothers concentration to attack. Its a natural feeling, and people want to avoid it and so they ask that breastfeeding be done privately. However, I disagree strongly with your comment on it being considered disgusting, it is not disgusting and it is merely a vocal minority of people who would say that it is.
Breastfeeding in Public

Many women try to do it discreetly and cover themselves with a cloth or blanket while their child feeds. I do not know why it would be embarrassing people were once all fully nude and thought nothing of it. Even though we have evolved from that many women wear clothing that barely covers them and seems more like undergarment. Why does no one feel embarrassed of this? Why does no one tell them it's disgusting and should only wear that "in private?"
I can't lose this debate.

I know that, but I have to disagree with you because Obama is White and he nuked Mississippi.Contention 1:You will not win this debate, and I have proof: https://www.google.com...You see, THIS IS PROOF FROM GOD ABOVE; I WILL NOT LOSE. Contention 2:Uptown funk doesn't give it to you: https://www.google.com...BUT IT GIVES IT TO ME: https://www.google.com...Contention 3:The Nazis are coming for you: https://www.google.com...I AM LEADING THEM: https://www.google.com...
The Zerg are the worst faction on Starcraft 2

As a Zerg player myself, I have a bit of a stronger conviction to this debate than most. One thing I'd like to point out, however, is that the resolution only requires me to prove how Zerg is not the WORST race. Also, I do not have to prove that the Zerg army is better then either army due to the wording of the resolved. I only have to prove that they are at least balanced, the goal of Blizzard themselves. Therefore, Con wins if Zerg is proven to be balanced or better than either Terran or Protoss.
The Zerg are the worst faction on Starcraft 2

Hi! I LOVE Starcraft 2, and I have played as all factions. Heres the lowdown of this debate. 1. You dont need sources, only gaming experience (AKA many, MANY hours of playing). If you have never played the game before, please dont accept this debate. 2. I will be arguing against the Zerg and for the Terrans and Protoss. Con's job in this debate is to prove why the Zerg can easily beat the Terrans and Protoss in any situation. 3. If you play Starcraft 2, and you win this debate, I will friend you on the Battlenet if you wish. Good luck to my opponent!
God exists

So I have been spreading this rumor around that I left Islam and became an atheist lately mostly to play the devil's advocate. These did not happen and I will never become atheist but I was merely trying to collect as many as rebuttals as possible. I will be arguing in this debate that the case for God is extensive and is most often underrated. I will be using science, philosophy and logic to form the foundations for my arguments for God. I am a Theist and my opponent should most likely be an atheist who denies the existence of God. Definitions : Universe - all of space, matter, time and energy God - The necessary, uncaused, omnimaximal, timeless, spaceless being. Exists - to have an objective being or existence. Rules : -no trolling -no forfeits -no semantics (tweaking definitions of the dictionary) Rounds : Round one - acceptance R2) arguments R3) Rebuttals + arguments R4) Rebuttals R5) Rebuttals BOP : Burden of proof will be shared. The opponent (who is most likely an atheist) will have to demonstrate that God does not exist. Since claiming that the natural reality is all that exists and that there is no supernatural reality is a claim. Whoever claims that God does not exist is making a negative claim and therefore should prove it. Proving a negative claim is possible because you can prove that there are no muslims in the U.S. senate, there are no dinosaurs on the face of the Earth, the sun does not orbit the Earth. all of those were negative claims that should and could be proven. The most logical position taken if you reject the claim that there is a God would be an agnostic, who claims that he simply does not know since you would still have no evidence for/against either sides. No arguments against religion shall be made since you could disprove all religions and you still would not undermine or even address the reliability of God.
Gun violence in America

Today in America lot of people die mostly by guns. Guns are so legalized in American that I could even get one and kill my mum. Take for example in England the rate of people carrying guns are few. Yes, I know people die mysterious death in England too but it's only few compare to America, everyday people kill themselves with this so-called 'gun' in America, can't the United state minimize normal civilianise from having it? Or do they support it too? Why??!
Gun violence in America

I Want to ask you a question. You say it is bad men that carry guns and kill people if so how do you want United state to solve gun violence as a problem in our community?! How do you want them to know the bad guys that misuse gun?! Take for example on 9/11 since that day USA change that security policies it was so tight that people coming from Muslims country went through extra secure search why? It is because they're not sure who is who. Take another example shootings in Colorado, different schools most especially in America, why couldn't they quickly detect a child brought gun into the school why? You can't blaim them, because these people they look so normal, they look like me and you, hardly will you know they're the devil themselves. If truly government want to go into the case of gun violence in America the best idea is totally ban it from all civiliance not banning it from bad civilians. 'THE GOOD YOU SEE TODAY MAY BE THE EVIL YOU'LL SEE THE NEXT SEC'. I wouldn't be surprise today if my best friend, sister...try to kill me it is who we are people, we are all humans we make mistakes even if it was intentional we still call it mistakes.
Gun violence in America

I dont support gun laws. violence by gunmen is bad but it is a price we as a nation must pay for certain things that not all but a substantial amount of people want. for example hunting. i hunt, my friends hunt, even most of my teachers hunt. so for that reason guns have to be allowed. on the other hand i get what your saying but you have to realize not very many people who hunt go around killing each other. we are much more responsible than that. the real killers are the men who are unstable and shouldn't have access to and dont need access to guns and other weapons.
League of Legends (pro) vs Dota 2 (con)

RebuttalsFriendly Minion KillingMy opponent has chosen to bring up the "denying" aspect of the game as most people call it. I would much rather call this the logic part as it would make sense "friendly fire" is "turned on". Think about it like this, when swinging a sword, shooting an arrow or magic it would only make sense that it hits whatever is in front of it first. If a friendly minion is in the way it is logical that they get hit by said attack and it doesn't just phase through them to hit an enemy. That is not how "real life" works. It is a rather easy aspect to get around through practice which is required for most things in life.ChatboxMy oppent has brought up a rather trivial issue as DOTA2 is not a game that requires audio to play. It is quite simple to disable audio in the settings or turn off your computer's volume. In League however you cannot as far as I am aware disable the text box which, more frequently than not, gets spammed by "pro players" saying how good they are or waypoint markers. Both of which are highly annoying.I shall hold my arguments until my opponent has given a viable point on how League is in fact better than DOTA 2
League of Legends (pro) vs Dota 2 (con)

Alright. Let's start out with simple game mechanics then. Everyone knows that a very large part of each game is the minion killing system. You kill a minion and gain gold and experience. These minions are able to decide the very tides of the game through their simple mechanics. In League of Legends you may only kill the enemy minions. In DOTA 2 you are able to kill both the enemy AND allied minions in a process called denying. A lot of people add that it throws in an extra layer to the game, but honestly, it's unecessary. It adds a complication that you shouldn't have to know or practice and it scares newer players away from the experience. But, as Valve does, they have to appeal only to their pro players. The best of the best who have already played the game for a long time. They almost want to scare the new players away and only keep their veterans. League of Legends on the other hand allows a nice and easy learning experience for their players and allows them a chance at improving at the game. Next the communities. Neither commuity is particularly. .. Appealing. But the League one definitely has a one up on the DOTA 2 community. League only has it's in game text box chat. It keeps things simple, and is easy to ignore. But DOTA 2 has a full in-game voice chat meaning that it is that much easier for flamers to well. Flame. It screws with your mentality and can throw everyone in to simple fits of rage. I'm interested in seeing how my opponent addresses these initial issues.
League of Legends (pro) vs Dota 2 (con)

Now before I begin my opening arguments I will take this time to define some terms. Now I would like to remind the judges that this is a very opinionated debate and would kindly ask if they would ignore any previous experience with said games. MOBA - Multiplayer Online Battle Arena which a sub-genre of the Real-Time Strategy genre. The gameplay is characterized by single unit hero strategic combat between two small teams of players, each trying to destroy the opponent's base. (. https://en.wikipedia.org...) DOTA 2 - Dota 2 is a free-to-play multiplayer online battle arena video game developed and published by Valve Corporation (. https://en.wikipedia.org...) I shall be arguing that DOTA 2 is in fact a "better" MOBA than League of Legends "LoL" Until my opponent gives his reasons why so I may rebuttal them I shall rest my case.
League of Legends (pro) vs Dota 2 (con)

League of Legends. It is possibly one of the best MOBAs on the market. It's fun, fast paced, competitive, and never takes itself too seriously. The game has given me personally three of the best years of my life and has been fun for every second of it. I feel as though it is better than DOTA 2 for many reasons, and this is coming from someone who has also played DOTA for about a year and a half. Can someone convince me wrong?
Dragonheart is the best fantasy movie

My opponent has done nothing to refute my arguments.All he says is that his opinion is more important to him than the combined opinions of dozens of professionals - who make a living of reviewing films, combined with lots of customer reviews. This is highly subjective and - admittedly - weakens my opponent's position.He does not even argue against my proposal for better fantasy movies.So, my points stand.Even if I WERE to agree with my opponent's final argument, and "Dragonheart" was to be called "better", my opponent dropped his point of the film being called "the best".I turn this over to the audience.
Dragonheart is the best fantasy movie

I argue that Dragonheart is not the best fantasy movie.Quality of a movie is a subjective thing. Movies are complex works of art, consisting of many layers. For every film made, there is someone finding qualities setting the film positively apart from some other movie.Hence, something like a "best film" of any genre can only exist as long as there is only ONE movie of that genre. As on as there are two or more films of a genre, "better" or even "best" does not objectively exist.If something like a "best movie" does not exist, "Dragonheart" cannot be the best fantasy film.All that exists objectively are "personal favourites".
Dragonheart is the best fantasy movie

I argue that Dragonheart is the best fantasy movie. There are three rounds to this debate 1. Elaboration 2. Evidence through links 3. Votes First off, Dragonheart is the best because it blends comedy, important lessons, family friendliness, good acting, well written script, exciting plot, and several more and it has been around since 1996 and 4 years later spawned an equaly great sequel
Minimum Wage

Forcing companies at gunpoint. . . Yeah, It's a law. Are you arguing about minimum wage, Or the validity of laws? Meanwhile, The rest of us are forced by threat of starvation and homelessness to work for businesses. That's life. "makes it hard for businesses to grow" And if every person in America owned a business you'd have a point. "companies will have enough to hire more people" This is not how the economy works. Businesses compete with each other to minimize costs. Therefore employees are hired because they are necessary -- not because businesses can afford more of them. Also, The ability to hire more people doesn't mean anything because the whole point of a job is to make money, So you're giving with one hand and taking with the other. It just reduces the value of a job in the first place. ". . . Which will help them grow, In turn boosting the economy" You've really got to explain this, Because this is a bogus assertion. Business success improves the economy insofar as money is spread around, But you're arguing against one mechanism for doing that. Otherwise business success benefits a small class of owners, Which is what businesses exist to do and what jobs exist to support. Also, Businesses grow when their increase in supply meets demand. By lowering wages, You are undercutting demand. But businesses are forced to do this anyway, Because they are responsible for their immediate profits and not for the health of the economy as a whole. Thus wage laws protect the economy. "everything else will raise with it. . . Causing the economy to fall" What has been going on in the last 30 years as workers have been paid less? Prices are always going up. CEO salaries are exploding. "Disruption" by tech companies are causing major companies to go bankrupt. But paying workers more will cause the economy to fall? Capitalism evens everything out. It's the prerogative of society to set the parameters under which our economy will operate.
Minimum Wage

Lets hear why not. By having a minimum wage, The government is quite literally forcing companies at gunpoint to pay their employees a certain amount. This makes it harder for more businesses to grow, Since they have to pay employees a large amount of money. This doesn't help the economy at all. My second point is by abolishing the minimum wage, It will create more jobs. If you don't force companies to pay their employees a certain amount of money, The companies will have enough money to hire more people, Which will help them grow, In return boosting the economy. My final point is that by raising the minimum wage, Everything else will raise with it. Taxes, Rent, And everyday products and services. This will drive people out of the area, Causing the economy to fall. If minimum wage works, Why don't we just raise it to $100/hr? Wouldn't that make everyone rich? . . . . (hint: absolutely not)
Fight Ironman vs. Thor

Thor is definatley more powerful. Thor has the power to control weather, creating cyclones, tornados, thunderstorms, and even huricanes. Thor has the ablitiy to travel faster than light in space, as well as acheiving super-sonic speeds (more than 767 MPH) within earth's atmosphere. Thor, according to Stan Lee is "stronger than the strongest person"Finally, Thor has the most important ability of all- Thor has the power to travel through time. More on how he could use these powers in the next round.