BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The voting age in the United States should be eliminated

"Great, all the more reason to reduce the representation, so as to encourage more people to stop that form of armed robbery known as 'taxation.'" If indeed there was no taxation, perhaps this argument would be relevant. But even then, there's no reason to restrict voting, though one reason to permit voting is eliminated. "Being a woman or a black has nothing to do with one's qualification to perform the relevant tasks to voting. Being a toddler does." Oh? And how would that be? Before you try to use 'various studies' as proof, keep in mind that there were various studies showing that women and blacks were less qualified to vote. There are also studies showing that young people are at least as capable of voting as older citizens. "The resolution speaks of whether this 'Should' happen, not whether the Constitution demands it. As such, I shall not bother rebutting this piece of irrelevancy." I would consider a constitutional demand a very great reason for why something should happen. Are you saying we should no longer follow the constitution? "Young children are clearly subject to influence from their parents, thus, in effect, granting extra votes to parents" Of course, as are most people. "We should remember, too, that many people today vote at first, and often for many years after, exactly as their parents voted." (Holt, John. Escape from Childhood. New York: E.P. Dutton & Co, 1974. p. 169) "Since parents of young children are on the whole more likely to support that robbery which is taxes than those people who are not currently parents (given their motive to support government schools)" The same government schools which are totalitarian enclaves of which young people would often prefer not to attend. There's little reason for young voters to support them when their parents would not be in the voting booth with them.
The voting age in the United States should be eliminated

"First, this country was founded on 'no taxation without representation'." Great, all the more reason to reduce the representation, so as to encourage more people to stop that form of armed robbery known as "taxation." "Second, it's discriminatory. We've had laws in the past that arbitrarily denied the right to vote (laws against women or black people voting), but we have found such laws to be unfair." Being a woman or a black has nothing to do with one's qualification to perform the relevant tasks to voting. Being a toddler does. "Finally, the fourteenth amendment clearly forbids refusing people rights due to their belonging to a certain class of people." The resolution speaks of whether this "Should" happen, not whether the Constitution demands it. As such, I shall not bother rebutting this piece of irrelevancy. Young children are clearly subject to influence from their parents, thus, in effect, granting extra votes to parents-- something absurd considering our population issues and the many subsidies parents already get. Since parents of young children are on the whole more likely to support that robbery which is taxes than those people who are not currently parents (given their motive to support government schools), such would have a negative effect on our respect for property rights as well. Should the voting age be altered? Maybe. Eliminated? Surely not.
Chicken Soup is better than Tomato Soup.

Hello, polka. I will refute: You said that "tomatoe soup, since it can be used in many different areas, will not be something you will get bored of. " What I meant was that since it can be used with almost anything, the frequent combinations will keep you interested. you said: "But, just becuase you add it into different things doesn't mean you won't get bored of it. Actually, using the same thing day after day, would get boring. Chicken noodle soup provide much variety at once." I concede that point to you, but so does Tomato Soup, when combined with other things. "Chicken noodle soup is also full of vitamins and minerals. (Well, it actually depends on the brand you get, but usually:) Also, lycopene may reduce the risk of things such as cancer, but what is known to CURE a cold? No medicine you can find on the shelves at stores is known to kill colds. Chicken noodle soup is known to CURE things and has variety. May I also add that you can get chicken noodle soup with goldfish as the noodles! :) hehe :)" I also agree that Chicken Noodle soup is full of vitamins and minerals. I direct the reader, however, to the severity of cancer and the severity of a common cold. Maybe in the 1800's(earlier?) it was common for people to die of the cold, but not today. We have remedies, cold swabs, cold medicine, and The soup we are debating about. The cold is nothing to worry about, while cancer is. Thus why Tomato soup is healthier. Besides, why have goldfish shaped noodles when it tastes great to put goldfish in your tomato soup? The reader should decide on the better debater, not who they agree with. Thank you.
Chicken Soup is better than Tomato Soup.

You said that tomatoe soup, since it can be used in many different areas, will not be something you will get bored of. But, just becuase you add it into different things doesn't mean you won't get bored of it. Actually, using the same thing day after day, would get boring. Chicken noodle soup provide much variety at once. "The tomato is known as a powerhouse of nutrition. It contains a multitude of vitamins and minerals that act to support health. However, it was not until the discovery of the carotenoid lycopene that modern science began to truly recognize the healing power of the tomato." Chicken noodle soup is also full of vitamins and minerals. (Well, it actually depends on the brand you get, but usually:) Also, lycopene may reduce the risk of things such as cancer, but what is known to CURE a cold? No medicine you can find on the shelves at stores is known to kill colds. Chicken noodle soup is known to CURE things and has variety. May I also add that you can get chicken noodle soup with goldfish as the noodles! :) hehe :)
Chicken Soup is better than Tomato Soup.

There are thousands of uses for paper, but that doesn't make it better than medicine. Chicken Soup is first off yummy. It has a variety of textures, with the noodles and soup, so you don't get bored of it easily. :) Secondly, chicken noodle soup is proven healthy for you and helps you when you are sick. It contains many herbs that are beneficial to your health including ginger, thyme, sage, and many other. This creates a wonderful heath "potion. " You are right, paper is not better than medicine, but having multiple uses does lend itself to having more things that can be done with it. I have no doubt that it is yummy, as I am a fan of both soups. It does have a variety of textures, but if you use all of the combinations I listed then you will not "get bored. " Chicken noodle soup is proven to be healthy and wonderful for medicinal purposes, but so dos tomato soup: The tomato is known as a powerhouse of nutrition. It contains a multitude of vitamins and minerals that act to support health. However, it was not until the discovery of the carotenoid lycopene that modern science began to truly recognize the healing power of the tomato. Lycopene has recently become the poster child of bioactive substances found in food that demonstrate health benefits. Among these benefits, the risk of prostate and breast cancer decreases due to lycopene.11 Lycopene appears to have a favorable effect in treating many other cancers such as: lung, stomach, colorectal, oral, esophageal, pancreatic, bladder and cervical cancer.11 Also, research has shown lycopene to lower the oxidation of LDL cholesterol and reduce heart disease,1,2,5,6 as well as increase the resistance to lung cancer and exercise induced asthma.7,9 There is even some evidence that lycopene in tomatoes may help to prevent cataracts,32,33 age-related macular degeneration34 and sunburns.31 More and more research appears to show that lycopene assists the immune system in protecting the body from illness. This is just a small Excerpt from . http://www.townsendletter.com..., a website talking about the medicinal values of Tomatoes, thus proving that when combined with bread and crackers and such, tomato soup comes out on top. Thank you and I await your rebuttal.
Chicken Soup is better than Tomato Soup.

Thanks for accepting! :) First of all, just because a certain thing has many uses, does not necessarily make it better. There are thousands of uses for paper, but that doesn't make it better than medicine. Chicken Soup is first off yummy. It has a variety of textures, with the noodles and soup, so you don't get bored of it easily. :) Secondly, chicken noodle soup is proven healthy for you and helps you when you are sick. It contains many herbs that are beneficial to your health including ginger, thyme, sage, and many other. This creates a wonderful heath "potion."
Chicken Soup is better than Tomato Soup.

I thank you for this debate. I beleive that tomato soup is so much better than chicken soup becuase it has so many tastes and combinations. I show you the proof here: YOU CAN USE IT IN AND ON (1ST) MEAT LOAF (2ND) AND WHEN YOU MAKE SPICY TACOS (3RD) STUFF BELL PEPPERS (4TH) MAKING PIZZA FROM HOME MADE (5TH) SPICY BEAN DIP FOR CHIPS FOR PARTY,S (6TH) SPICY MEATBALL AND SPAGHETTI (7TH) SPICY VEGETABLE BEEF SOUP (8TH) SPICY GROUND BEEF FOR OTHER DISHES LIKE HAMBURGER'S TO GIVE THE BEEF JUST A SPICY TOUCH AND TO KEEP THEM FROM DRYING OUT ON THE GRILL (9TH) SPICY SALAS DIPS FOR CHIPS (10TH) SPICY SLOPPY JOES These are the possible combinations from a yahoo question about all the things you can do with tomato soup. Thank you and I await your rebuttal.
Impromptu Debate 1: Free trade is good for the economy

Here's how this debate will work: we will both have a half hour to craft our opening arguments, and then 10 minutes for each of our rebuttals. So that means this entire debate will be over in 70 minutes. If this debate has been posted and accepted, it means that it is underway. ConservativeLibertarian have discussed this via private messaging and are both in the process of crafting our opening arguments, so the clock is currently ticking.
It is impossible to prove the existence of God.

"He says I dropped his argument. .. " Pro says my argument about setting up an experiment to discover God is not topical. This is completely untrue! If we set up an experiment and discover God, is that not proving his existence? I am merely saying that it is possible to prove God's existence through experiment. Pro responds by saying that I made this claim, therefore he doesn't have to respond to it. The point of debating someone is responding to their claims. "The only thing my faith argument. .. " Again, the faith argument is completely non-topical. It has no bearing on whether the existence of God can be proven. "Con seperates my case. .. " Spectacular. Unfortunately, this does nothing against my rebuttals. In summary, Pro has dropped the following: 1) Jesus and the Bible are evidence of God. How can Jesus be explained without God? The Bible is proof because it is, as Pro says, a materialization of God's words. How can such a materialization exist without something to create it? 2) Free will. Proof of God's existence does not compromise free will, as there is still a choice. 3) Proof of God would make God 'happier' as more people would go to Heaven. Thank you, and vote Con! P. S. Thank God!
It is impossible to prove the existence of God.

In my closing argument, I will go to voters. He says I dropped his argument about observing God and his controlled experiment but that argument was not topical due to the fact that the resolution was "Is it possible to prove God's existence or not", paraphrased, of course. He explains ideas of trying to discover him. Hence, not endowing me with the burden of answering this claim. The only thing my faith argument was saying that faith would completely lose its relevance if God was proved because there is nothing about him unknown. Con seperates my case and he claims to answer each of my points. My case is really just one argument with subpoints. I ask my opponent for their forgiveness considering the fact that I am sick and I did not put as much time, energy or thought that I wanted to. P.S. I do not have swine influenza.
It is impossible to prove the existence of God.

"He says by proving God..." So at the same time I will both not believe in God, as well as knowing he's there? I can either not believe in him, or know he's there, not both. Even then, this whole faith argument doesn't change whether or not God can exist. Pro is saying it wouldn't allow for faith and that's not what God would want. How does that have anything to do with God's existence being provable? This is an interesting discussion on faith, but doesn't affect the resolution. That Bible quote doesn't have anything to do with God's existence being provable either. "He says the Bible is evidence..." If the Bible is a materialization of his words, doesn't that mean they are evidence? Words can be metaphysical, but the works of William Shakespeare serve as evidence of his existence. Nobody alive today has seen him, but we have evidence of him through his works. How can the Bible be the materialization of the words of a non-existent being? Also, what do words being meta-physical have to do with anything? "Free will is compromised..." Free will is not compromised. The only time in which free will is compromised is when there is only one choice. As long as their is more than one choice and people have the ability to choose, free will exist. "I can propose possibilities..." I have done so as well - that God placed proof of his existence on Earth in terms of Jesus Christ and the Bible. How can Jesus be explained without the existence of God? I would now like to point out that Pro dropped my whole argument dealing with observing God, and the controlled experiment I proposed. If we were to directly prove God's existence by observing him, we have proved God exists. Because my opponent fails to respond to this, he concedes the point, and the resolution is negated.
It is impossible to prove the existence of God.

I will first attack his arguments against me then I will attack his case. He says by proving God, he will be 100% faithful in him. You will not actually believe in him because you know he's there. Thus, proving the supposed faith in him obsolete. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1). You have faith that he is there but you cannot confirm it. He says the Bible is evidence but the Bible is just a materialization of his words and words are a meta-physical object. Free will is compromised because in a belief system you are automatically having a belief put down in your system. I can't dictate what a God can do but I can propose possibilities.
It is impossible to prove the existence of God.

I contend that it is not impossible to prove the existence of a God. I assume we are debating the Christian God. CON CASE The Christian God can be proved to exist. If we set up a controlled experiment asking God to explicitly contact us, by say laying a pen and paper in a closed observable room and waiting for him/her/it to write a message, we can prove that God exists. If we are ever able to tear a hole in spacetime and God resides in a different reality, we have proved God. If we ever directly 'see' God in a controlled environment, we have proved God. The fact of the matter is that it's possible to prove almost anything simply by directly observing it. PRO CASE "God can't be proven because he is infinite..." How does being infinite relate to being improvable? Pro says that proving God would make faith irrelevant. Wouldn't proving a God lead the maximum number of people to a salvation? If legit proof is given that God exists, I'd have complete faith in him/her. All proof does is give us a reason to be 100% faithful in something and have no doubt at all. Without proof, there is always some likelihood against something existing. "God would most likely not randomly place proof of his existence on Earth" Why? First, who are you to dictate what a god would do? Second, what if said god deliberately placed evidence of itself on Earth? Don't the Bible and Jesus count as evidence? "people would join not necessarily because they want to...That would undermine free will" -Many people don't join because they 'want to' but because they are raised in their belief system. Free will would still exist. You could still choose not to follow Christianity. I think the proof God would make God 'happiest' by leading the most people to salvation. The resolution is negated because one can prove a God by observing it. Such a proof would lead the most people to salvation, making God 'happiest', and we would still have free will.
It is impossible to prove the existence of God.

I created this topic to say that I am fed up with people telling me to prove the existence of God. God can't be proven because he is infinite and if he could be empirically proven the required faith to be saved by him would be completely irrelevant. God would most likely not randomly place proof of his existence on Earth. He gives us free will and choices and if we could prove him, all of the sudden people would join not necessarily because they want to but because they know Christianity is the right religion. That would undermine free will hence, God would not want that.
God has to Allow Suffering, Problem of Suffering Refuted Indubitably

"I would like to tell you that not all people learn from their mistakes and some people do good but still suffer." It's not about learning from mistakes, read again. I'll copy and Paste, "example 1: say a con-man continues to con for the rest of his life and becomes rich and has a happy life. If lying and stealing is said to be wrong then why will this man prosper for it." Because somehow in this world, he prospered, YHWH made free will, the con-mans free will and humanity's free will caused it. "example 2: a baby is born in a poor income country. This baby is very innocent. the baby is not able to rob a bank or even talk. The family has been a good family but they still suffer. The motors breast is like a pencil and barley gives any milk. The baby becomes unhealthy and starts to die." And the baby will be given Eternal Life and like Paul said, Romans 8:18 - "I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us." If god makes people suffer because of their mistakes then why do good people live sad lives" Because this world is evil and man is evil. "and bad people live happy rich lives. I see this as the main flaw in belief of god." Bad people somehow got ahead, all Free Will and Man's Choice. Why does YHWH have to allow it? If He prevents it and appears to us Free Will is broken and bad people wouldn't be able to repent and would go to Hell(Which is Death), do you believe that it is fair for evil men not to get a chance to repent because YHWH prevented finite suffering which will be made no big deal in eternity? I don't think that's fair, I know that YHWH allows suffering so that free will isn't broken and sinners can repent, those who suffer won't care as suffering on this earth will be no big deal in Eternity.
God has to Allow Suffering, Problem of Suffering Refuted Indubitably

I think this will be interesting. I accept your debate. I would like to tell you that not all people learn from their mistakes and some people do good but still suffer. example 1: say a con-man continues to con for the rest of his life and becomes rich and has a happy life. If lying and stealing is said to be wrong then why will this man prosper for it. example 2: a baby is born in a poor income country. This baby is very innocent. the baby is not able to rob a bank or even talk. The family has been a good family but they still suffer. The motors breast is like a pencil and barley gives any milk. The baby becomes unhealthy and starts to die. If god makes people suffer because of their mistakes then why do good people live sad lives and bad people live happy rich lives. I see this as the main flaw in belief of god.
God has to Allow Suffering, Problem of Suffering Refuted Indubitably

look I'm getting tired of this argument these scriptures prove nothing you can't prove to me that they are all scientifically accurate I'm not going to say much but I'm going to talk about this Jesus Christ Historical Resurrection is a Fact The Shroud of Turin is Scientifically Supernatural First Uncaused Cause Fine Tuning Morality cannot exist without YHWH Intelligent Design "macro-evolution" is Scientifically false demonic Activity Substance Dualism most of these are not proven give me science then we will talk more (the reason I'm somewhat giving up on this is because I have found it is hard to talk to a very religious person about god)
God has to Allow Suffering, Problem of Suffering Refuted Indubitably

"If god knows all and knows what it right then why would he let people rob a house?" Read what I first wrote all over again, I proved that YHWH allows for example a house to be robbed, not because He doesn't exist or care, He really exists the reason He allows suffering/bad things to happen is so that people can repent, if He doesn't allow bad things(which will be no big deal in Eternity) then others can't repent and go to Hell(Death) for eternity for what they did as they cannot repent or because they don't want to. YHWH allows suffering because He is merciful to allow bad people to say sorry and be forgiven, which is amazing, the suffering YHWH allows makes this possible, the suffering will be a big deal at all when we go to Heaven/New Earth, Read, From YHWH's Word, The Bible, Romans 8 - Present Suffering and Future Glory 18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. Revelation 21:4 - "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death"[a] or mourning or crying or pain,for the old order of things has passed away." "How do you know that people will be saved and how do you know that christ will come back?" Because YHWH(The Father, and The Son, and The Holy Spirit) exists, study science, history etc, The Bible is Scientifically and Historically Accurate, if there are any contradictions it is about 5 or less which is nothing, and it's proven True. Jesus Christ Historical Resurrection is a Fact The Shroud of Turin is Scientifically Supernatural First Uncaused Cause Fine Tuning Morality cannot exist without YHWH Intelligent Design "macro-evolution" is Scientifically false demonic Activity Substance Dualism
God has to Allow Suffering, Problem of Suffering Refuted Indubitably

Im sorry if I insulted you. That was never my intention. 2 questions: If god knows all and knows what it right then why would he let people rob a house? How do you know that people will be saved and how do you know that christ will come back? (ps. Im a little confused but not to much) (pps. please exuse my bad english i have dyslexia)