BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Women should have the same rights as men.

While I agree with the standpoint that all women should be equal, there are some flaws in the argument of Pro. 1) The constitution only applies to its own country. My opponent states that "as it says in the Constitution that everyone is made equal. Many women around the world can't even go to Wal-Mart without their husband's permission." This statement is inherently contradictory as the source used is the 'US Constitution which only applies to citizens of the United States. The only exception to this rule is stated in amendment 14 where citizens in United States territories are also granted the freedoms within the constitution. The 14th amendment is the most inheritable for non-citizens as it does not directly state citizens in the wording, yet is is based of religious belief that everyone is made equal and should not be prevented of these rights. This does not give the US the right to interfere with other nations and their relations to those nations, rather the safety of persons under control of the United States whether on their land or in their courts. 2) Young marriage is not a gendered issue. When my opponent argues that "They're forced to marry strangers, and at a very young age." they neglect the fact that this is not a gendered issue. This is an issue in culture where younger people are forced to perform in ritual marriage. This affects both the husband and the wife in this circumstance which causes it to be more than a 'female rights' issue and rather a cultural issue which hurts younger people. The fact that this has been created into a gendered issue causes more harm to be done to men as they are often ignored in this dangerous act. The act of under age marriage according to 'Girls Not Brides' occurs mainly in Niger, Central African Republic, Chad, Mali, and South Sudan. All of these are tribal areas which shows that culture is the main issue, and the issue is not gendered. Sources: -http://classroom.synonym.com... -http://www.thedailybeast.com... -http://www.girlsnotbrides.org...
Betting

Betting is associated with games at a casino which people do for FUN and their own personal enjoyment. Betting is just a little added element to the game to make it a little more interesting. Betting is done at your own risk. Everyone knows it coming in. For some, it can turn their life around by winning lots of money. You brought up the obvious point that betting can cause you to lose a large sum of money. Betting shouldn't be completely illegal, but instead limited. Limitations on how much a person can bet will help the person keep money while still being able to have a good time. The whole thing about preserving people's lives by ending betting is taking it all a little to far. Not all of these are caused by betting.
Betting

Betting should not be allowed because it hurts people's lives. Unless someone is very good at betting, one can lose thousands, maybe even a lifetime worth of money! On the other hand, those who are good at betting, are opportunists who take advantage of others misfortune! Those who lose all their money hurt their families and may end up without a home, or at least very poor. We should end betting in order to preserve people's lives. This would also decrease taxes because welfare spending would be lessened. This would include food stamps, shelters and other welfare efforts. Decreasing welfare would allow spending in needed areas or toward the debt. Therefore, making betting illegal will decrease welfare spending and increase people's lives.
No "god" of the bible would be stupid enough to use text as a form of communication

NOTHING is established in scripture so everybody can get it wrong as there have been 0 updates in at least 2, 000 years. There"s translations upon translations upon translations upon translations upon copies upon copies upon copies upon copies upon dead languages upon dead languages with absolutely 0% of a chance to trace it back to the original. And there"s no original in the first place! So absolutely nobody is interpreting correctly. Not you, Not the pope, No minister, No priest, No pastor, No-bo-dy. And within those translations and copies throughout the generations, Characters and what they have said, Especially with its leading characters, Namely god and christ, Their quotes/ verses have changed over time. Oh really? Who has the right and or know how to change ANY of god"s language to update it to whatever they felt like and or to amputate it into ---their--- language? Did they consult god and or jesus to see if this was OK? Of course not. And more importantly did they get it right as an updated version to what these characters would say in this day and age, Or even back then when the translations were updated? So once again god if as stated was reasonably intelligent, In which he"s clearly not, Would ---never--- use text as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible because he would have certainly have foreseen all of these major faults. Oh and btw, Nobody can even prove that this god of the bible exists! Rules: Prove that the god of the bible would use text, Namely the bible, As a form of communication. (Hint: think of at least 25 more reasons why he would not) Only those that think they are christians will be allowed to accept this debate! Be intelligent. DO NOT INVENT EXCUSES because I will know better and you will thus rightly be insulted with my brand of insults. dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.
Terrorism is a direct result of foreign policy.

I believe that terrorism (from the Middle East towards America) is a direct result of America's foreign policy, geopolitical maneuvering's, economic corruption, and favoritism towards Israel - and is not merely 'Islamic Jihadist's who hate our freedom'. The War on Terror and the Bush Doctrine only serve to further exacerbate anti-western sentiment, and actually create terror - rather than inhibit it. I think the best analogy for the War on Terror is 'cutting a worm in half', because the worm's halves are just going to grow into two more worms who both detest the thing which tried to destroy it. Osama Bin Laden clearly stated that he did not organize the 9/11 attacks for the glory of Allah; he did it because he was present in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1982, when Israel troops used American weapons and bombs to level the entire city. It was at this point when he declared vengeance on Israel and America. Part of the destruction of Beirut was the demolition of Beirut's main towers - hence the focus of Osama's attack on America's main towers. President Obama has inherited one of the messiest situations in foreign policy in a long time. Decades of America's support for despotism, economic repression, Israel, and war has been laid in Obama's lap. This can be a pivotal moment for American foreign relations, if we denounce our former actions, provide economic and politic support for the people seeking democracy, and pull our corporate sanctions on their oil. The War on Terror is counterintuitive and a paradox.
Any given person should do debate

--Benefits of debate-- There are many clear benefits to debate, and for everyone, not just the debater. Students Benefit: • 61% increase in critical thinking skills • 25% improvements in literacy rates • 95-99% college matriculation rates among at risk students • Over 150 colleges and universities actively recruit urban debaters for admission and scholarships • Urban debaters in most cities have high school graduation rates above 90% (national avg. 72%) Colleges & Parents Benefit: Only 32% of all students leave high school qualified to attend four-year colleges. When urban debate leagues informs parents that debaters receive millions in scholarships just for debating, they see new options for their children. More than 150 colleges offer debate scholarships. Universities use urban debaters to diversify their entering classes with promising students from neighborhoods they cannot access normally. School Districts Benefit: Creating positive culture is a key component of building district-wide norms of academic excellence. Reaching just 5% of students with the UDL model has driven schools to add AP courses, upgrade their libraries, and expand their educational objectives for all students. Debate works. It’s why debate was required in every school district for decades. Communities Benefit: High school graduates live longer, have better general health and are less likely than high school dropouts to use publicly financed health insurance programs. If the 18-year-olds who failed to graduate had advanced one grade, it would save nearly $2.3 billion in publicly financed medical care, aggregated over a lifetime. The Nation Benefits: 1.2 million students fail to graduate on time costing the nation more than $312 billion in lost wages, taxes and productivity over their lifetimes. For every city where debate flourishes, their earning potential increases exponentially, saving billions. (1) As we can clearly see from this source, debating has benefits. Aside from direct debate benefits, debaters meet new people the majority of the time and can make new friends. It expands their horizons, creates new opportunities of all sorts, increases speaking skills… Debate is obviously something that is beneficial and therefore I believe that any given person should do debate.
Race does not exist

"If you think your race is special, you are a racist" - I would agree to a point with you if a new debate was made that way - if you think your race is superior, you are racist. But special can just mean it is special to you, but that semantics - I got your point and I agree with you. As much as you would like to claim you are no colour, sorry - but you are. No colour, can still be a colour - No matter how much you deny it to yourself. Acknowledge it, and then never think of it again is the current strategy i am running with, with my life. The current Land I am from is Australia, so I do have an attachment to the land (It is beautiful, when it isn't hot!) - and I appreciate it, and try to perpetuate the beauty where I can. Religion, None - I have stayed away from joining any such, without shutting out the purposes of each religion, as I feel it is the message they intend, over the actual words and commandments they try and impose on you. Race? I am typically an Anglo (White) human. I have great logical and spacial awareness, and a keen empathy for others. That is the extent to which I attribute what I am good at, from my Heritage. The rest should be either addressed if it is negative to your life; Or encouraged if it is good! What is your problem with Race (apart from the obvious issue of racism and racial profiling) - What have you got against the term "race" - apart from those that hurtful people have used to hurt others?
Race does not exist

Race, to me, very much exists.It is is the acceptance that there is a difference between people, a symbol of where we come from.People use the negative aspects of race to put down others, but as there is always a negative to something (especially if someone clever has had time to think about it), you must acknowledge the fact that it is there - it does not mean that the good aspects it comes with does not exist.People from Asian decent are statistically shorter, their life spans are longer and their spacial awareness is keen.People from African nations have flatter noses to assist with heat dispersion while retaining moisture, their muscles are built in a way that provides additional fast twitch muscles, yet they retain speed when muscles develope slow twitch muscles.People of Anglo or European decent have incredible logical and spacial awareness, and an adaptability that is astounding - Consider where they have traveled!I believe Race exists, and it is awesome! :)
Race does not exist

This is a Challenged debate to the User : Max.Wallace. Please do not accept if you are not this user, it will classify as a forfeiture and I will have to remake this debate. (Don't really want to do this guys, so pls.) Subject : Race does not exist Stance (To my knowledge): Pro: Race does not exist Con: Race does exist. There is no limitations apart from the settings required for this debate. This is an open debate, with no requirements for sources, proof or any other expected sources for debates - barring logical sense. This is a private debate, with pre-agreed settings, We will simply be debating with each other with nothing but out minds to sway the other. As per a discussion with my soon to be opponent, he is tired of having to conform with the 'PC' methods of all the other debates, Which is why I am creating this first round. After this first beginner/opening remark - All structures are forgone, the round can have whatever is wished - however a drive to continue the debate must be maintained - No major tangents or anything else that will waste a round, for no other reason than wasting the round please. I leave the first round to my opponent, however my 'opening statement' to keep this as my first round is as follows : Race totally exists! Good Luck Max.Wallace, I hope we both have fun! :)
Dog meat should be served at USA resturants

"Funny about the national security, but I don't think anyone is buying that. :)" I admit, that argument is overrated, but I don’t think anyone is seriously considering we should be eating mankind’s best friend for lunch either ;) "Many countries serve dog meat and it is part of their culture. By continuing to not serve dog meat we are being culturally insensitive to these traditions." As I’ve hopefully already alluded to, these countries are in the minority, are comparatively impoverished, have terrible human rights records, and very few (if any) are actually part of Western civ. Countries like North Korea and China should not be lecturing us about cultural sensitivity when they have an inclination towards totalitarian governments and could honestly care less about cultural diversity and democratic rule of law. "On June 21 in Yulin City in the Ganxi Zhuang Autonomous Region of China, a "Dog Meat Festival" event was held where citizens gathered to eat dog meat." Which was no doubt followed by mass protest: http://www.cctv-america.com... "Dog meat saves chickens, pigs, and cows lives. Think of it from a cow or chicken's point of view? Would they like to be dinner? Or would they rather another animal to be dinner?" We shouldn’t think of this issue from a cow or chicken’s point of view because we’re human beings, and the human mind is far and away superior to animal ways of thinking. The human view –according to animal rights activists and pet owners everywhere in the United States- is overwhelmingly “Dogs Lives Matter.” "I find it hypocritical to put the needs of a dog above those of other animals. As for religion, some religions see cows as sacred. By serving dog meat in lieu of cow meat many cow lives and cruelty towards cows could be prevented. pbs.org" Unfortunately, in the United States, your view is in the minority. And our democratic society is clearly ran by rule of the majority. In this country, cows taste good and dogs don’t. So again, unless we want mass protests, riots, and a PETA organized boycott on hot dogs, the U.S. should not legalize dog-meat. "To India"s millions of Hindus, the cow is a holy animal that cannot be harmed " Dogs are also worshipped by Hindus, believed to be guarding the doors into Heaven (https://en.wikipedia.org...). So out of respect to millions of Hindus also, we shouldn’t be selling dog-meat. "Yet, how is the sanitation for dogs any different than those of poultry?" Its different because of the ethics involved. Chickens do not hold nearly the same level of regard in human society as dogs. "Again, changeforanimals.org implies that there are humane methods for slaughtering animals. Watch the below video and see for yourself if other farm animals are humanely slaughtered." Changeforanimals.org never implied that are humane methods for slaughtering dogs. Your video shows no evidence of a dog being humanely slaughtered.
Dog meat should be served at USA resturants

Good points, you used outside sources. Funny about the national security, but I don't think anyone is buying that. :) Many countries serve dog meat and it is part of their culture. By continuing to not serve dog meat we are being culturally insensitive to these traditions. "On June 21 in Yulin City in the Ganxi Zhuang Autonomous Region of China, a "Dog Meat Festival" event was held where citizens gathered to eat dog meat. " Dog meat saves chickens, pigs, and cows lives. Think of it from a cow or chicken's point of view? Would they like to be dinner? Or would they rather another animal to be dinner? I find it hypocritical to put the needs of a dog above those of other animals. As for religion, some religions see cows as sacred. By serving dog meat in lieu of cow meat many cow lives and cruelty towards cows could be prevented. pbs. org "To India"s millions of Hindus, the cow is a holy animal that cannot be harmed " You use the source "Sanitation With so many dogs required for the farms to make a profit, it is costly and difficult to keep dog farms clean. Lack of care, insufficient funds and little knowledge about dog needs and welfare, results in dogs being kept in unhygienic conditions. R03;" changeforanimals. org Yet, how is the sanitation for dogs any different than those of poultry? "No country in the world has devised a humane method of slaughtering dogs for commercial dog meat production. " Again, changeforanimals. org implies that there are humane methods for slaughtering animals. Watch the below video and see for yourself if other farm animals are humanely slaughtered. Also the humanemyth. org website provides visual details of how humane farm animals living conditions and slaughter are. . http://www.changeforanimals.org... . http://www.humanemyth.org... . http://www.pbs.org... . http://www.japancrush.com...
Dog meat should be served at USA resturants

Great topic! Here’s what I got: Why the U.S. should not legalize selling dog-meat at restaurants US National Security Interests When the top dog-meat eating countries in the world are China, Vietnam, North Korea, and isolated parts of the African continent (all countries and areas with dismal human rights records) you know you have a propaganda issue at hand. Though the major US security concern is in fact with protecting human rights –and not animal rights- the very fact that dog-meat is typically seen as a taboo food; meaning also not very well regulated, processed, or sanitized enough for people to eat even in countries where it is legal (http://www.changeforanimals.org...) <<< like South Korea), means that the US government would lose serious credibility on the world stage were it to legalize selling dog-meat at US restaurants. Serving dog-meat to the U.S. population is therefore a propaganda win for totalitarian governments that just don’t give a darn about what their people eat and whether it’s safe or not. US Cultural View of Dogs In American society, dogs by the large majority of the population are typically treated as pets (not food) and are afforded at least some legal protection against wrongful treatment (such as with dog fighting & Michael Vick). Legalizing dog-meat at US restaurants –certainly to be an unpopular measure with US animal rights agencies- therefore could be expected to create new domestic protests & violence that could be disruptive to the American government, economy, and orderly way of life. In a society and culture that can also potentially borderline worship dogs as role-models (evidence by Snoopy, Old Yeller, Clifford, Pluto, and Scooby-Doo) –in addition to the typical inclinational view as pets that I’ve just argued for- you can expect “Dog Lives Matter” boycotts at a U.S. restaurant near you. Religious Views of Dogs In some popular religions, like in Islam, Judaism, and elements of Buddhism & Hinduism, Dogs are either worshipped, protected, or play a significant religious role (https://en.wikipedia.org...). Offending a large body of fanatically religious people is never a good idea for a country if it can be smartly avoided. That all I got for now. Looking forward to R2.
Obama's birth certificate is fake

Pro's response to my 20 sources all of them independently confirming that Obama's birth certificate is real, "WIKIPEDIA LIES AND THE GOVERNMENT CONTROLS EVERYTHING" Troll. .. .. .. .. .. The troll then bases his entire argument on a report carried out by one Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a sheriff who is currently accused of - Violating the Constitutional rights of criminals - Racially profiling suspected illegal immigrants - Abusing his power - Violating election laws - Misusing Public funds And Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been criticized for his actions by numerous organizations including but not limited to - The United States Department of Justice, - The United States District Courts, - Amnesty International - The American Civil Liberties Union, - The Arizona Ecumenical Council, - The American Jewish Committee - The Arizona chapter of the Anti-Defamation League - Even the editorial board of The New York Times . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://web.archive.org... . http://www.jewishaz.com... . http://www.azcentral.com... . http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com... So all in all I have given many reliable sources from both conservative, liberal, and moderate perspectives all showing that Obama's birth certificate is real. The Pro has given one source about a guy who thinks the birth certificate is fake but that same guy has been found guilty of numerous violations of US law and has been denounced by many organizations, making him an unreliable source.
Obama's birth certificate is fake

First of all wikipedia is not a reliable source because any one can go on and edit posts. Secondly the government has the power to have what ever they want out there. "Mr. Arpaio personally commissioned a ten-page report that allegedly shows that Obama's long-form birth certificate is a "computer generated forgery," the Chicago Sun Times reports" "The investigation was conducted by volunteers working for Mr. Arpaio. According to the Maricopa County Sheriff, volunteers were used in an attempt not to spend taxpayer money on the investigation. Most of the people involved were retired police officers and lawyers." Bibliography: http://www.thestatecolumn.com... A video stating the exact same thing: http://www.youtube.com...
Obama's birth certificate is fake

Sources confirming that Obama does not have a fake birth certificate and that he is indeed American. http://www.whitehouse.gov... http://factcheck.org... http://www.foxnews.com... http://www.usatoday.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://abcnews.go.com... http://evanhutchinson.hubpages.com... http://whatreallyhappened.com... http://whatreallyhappened.com... http://whatreallyhappened.com... http://www.nowpublic.com... http://latimesblogs.latimes.com... http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com... http://www.sodahead.com... http://www.calldrmatt.com... http://www.whitehouse.gov... http://unconfirmedsources.com... http://www.obamaconspiracy.org... http://www.globalpost.com... http://www.foxnews.com... Is this good enough?