BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is it okay that God doesn't talk to us

You think God has time for your stupid wealthy white people questions? Hell no! Hes GOD for f*cks sake he has more important measures to attend to, mostly making sure Heaven is as kick a** as it is. I mean even if only 50% of people go to Heaven, there have been over 100 BILLION people to ever exist, meaning that Heaven has a population of about 50 BILLION people. Which do you think God cares more about? 50 Billion of the nicest and noblest people to have ever lived on Earth, or 8 billion whiny people who wonder why God doesnt talk to them WHEN THEY LITERALLY CRUCIFIED HIS OWN SON. It might not just be that God is too busy to talk to us, he may just be f*cking tired of humanity already..... - We crucified his son - We rape, murder, and lie every day against his wishes - The Catholic Church itself is struggling to deal with a child-sex scandal and is arguably out of touch with both God and society - The Dallas Cowboys, 'Gods alleged favorite team' are like 1-4 - Holy land in the Middle East is frequently overrun with blood, violence, and civil war - Most people who pray to God only ask for stupid sh*t that they could get themselves if they actually tried to work hard to get it.
The World Will End (2012)

My opponent has essentially restated his last argument (with a few ad Hominem's thrown in). For this reason, I have nothing else to say. To reiterate my argument from last round would be a waste of time for both myself and the reader. Recap: The resolution is that the world will end in 2012. The "world" can refer to either the Earth or to the human race. My opponent has conceded this. My opponent has the burden to prove that this will indeed not happen, and he has provided no intrinsic reason to believe so. Further, I have given three possibilities in which the world may come to an end. The first argument stands because science has far from found every near earth object and if it had found something that would destroy the earth or the human race, it would have reasons not to reveal this information to the public. My opponent conceded my second argument. My third argument stands because there are significant nuclear threats that have not signed the CTBT, and because nations do not necessarily obey treaties. Therefore, my opponent has not negated the resolution as required by Burden of Proof.
The World Will End (2012)

First off I did prove that the world would not end because you only brought up 2 points. Your first point was that an asteroid could hit the earth. I negated this possibility by saying scientists have foreseen future events like this because hundreds of them observe space everyday. Also you brought up Nuclear fallout, this is unlikely which I proved in round 3. Maybe you should go back and read through before you act over confident. Thanks for playing. You need to prove why the world will end My arguement refuted Let me also tell you there is something called the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty also known as (CTBT). 98% of the world has either signed the treaty or is in the process of ratifying the treaty. There are only a few countries such as North Korea, India, and Pakistan who have not signed the treaty. Still it wouldn't be wise to have a nuclear fallout when 98% of the world is against it. Also the world will probably never end, people think if humans die out this means the world as ended. Wrong! This is not true the world (Earth) will still be there. If an asteroid indeed does hit the Earth Humans will die out but the earth will still be there whether part of it breaks off or the asteroid combines and expands the land mass. Vote Con. Pro doesn't know what he is talking about.
The World Will End (2012)

My opponent forgets two things. First, he forgets that the resolution is an absolute statement, and second, he forgets that he has burden of proof. I am not required to prove that the world will end; however, my opponent is required to prove that it will not. As long as my possibilities stand, the resolution is not negated (I forgot I was PRO last round when I stated that it was negated). My opponent states that because scientists have supposedly foreseen all of the activity in the entire solar system. I have two objections to this. First, I would like to point out that the Spaceguard movement by NASA has far from cataloged all of the near earth objects. For example, in 2002 alone, there were two meteor incidents that NASA had not foreseen, the Vitim event[1][2] and the Eastern Mediterranean event[3]. In 2008, meteoroid 2008 TC3 was spotted less than a day before impact[4]. Clearly, our asteroid surveillance technology is not good enough to find celestial objects heading for earth. Second, I would like to point out, again, that if such an asteroid were found, the government would have covered it up to keep society functioning without panic. My opponent concedes my second argument. My opponent has several objections to my third argument. First, he asserts that the world does not come to an end when the human race dies out. This is not true; in fact, the common interpretation of "the end of the world" is that the human race comes to an end. In fact, one of the definitions of world is "The inhabitants of the earth; the human race" [5] and 5 of the definitions refer to the human race. Another definition is simply "Human existence" [5]. Clearly, this objection does not hold. My opponent's second objection is that nuclear fallout cannot happen; however, he lists out three nuclear countries that have not signed the CTBT. One of them is North Korea. North Korea has a lively nuclear program [6] and is openly hostile to the rest of the world, making nuclear threats at the United States[7]. North Korea and other countries are not incapable of producing a nuclear war by 2012. Further, many countries have broken treaties throughout history for military gain. Nazi Germany is a quick example[8]. Therefore, we cannot believe that just because there is a treaty that it will be followed. There is no reason to doubt the possibility of a nuclear fallout. My opponent has failed to negate the resolution. Vote PRO. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.planetary.org... [5] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [6] http://www.fas.org... [7] http://english.aljazeera.net... [8] http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
The World Will End (2012)

Most of, if not all of the points you have made start out with "It is possible....". This isn't very convincing. Scientists already have foreseen and calculated things out. There is no such asteroid coming to hit earth. Let me also tell you there is something called the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty also known as (CTBT). 98% of the world has either signed the treaty or is in the process of ratifying the treaty. There are only a few countries such as North Korea, India, and Pakistan who have not signed the treaty. Still it wouldn't be wise to have a nuclear fallout when 98% of the world is against it. Also the world will probably never end, people think if humans die out this means the world as ended. Wrong! This is not true the world (Earth) will still be there. If an asteroid indeed does hit the Earth Humans will die out but the earth will still be there whether part of it breaks off or the asteroid combines and expands the land mass.
The World Will End (2012)

My opponent has presented an argument from ignorance (http://fallacyfiles.org...). He has stated that, because there are no scientific theories suggesting that the world will end in 2012, that the world will not end. The human race possesses no scientific theory on the composition of quarks; however, that does not mean that there aren't any. My opponent has then asserted that the only "proof" that the world will end in 2012 are rumors. This is irrelevant to the resolution because my opponent's calling the public fear "panic" neither confirms nor denies the truth behind the situation. Essentially, my opponent has no intrinsic proof that the world will not end. I will now show that it is possible, thus negating the resolution. A) It is possible that there is an asteroid from the asteroid belt falling towards the Sun. This possible asteroid will cross the Earth's path in 2012, knocking the planet to its doom. It is possible that this asteroid has not been identified yet, and it is also possible that it also hasn't been knocked in the direction of the Sun yet either. Therefore, it is possible, albeit unlikely, that the world will end in 2012. It is also possible that the governments of the world have already spotted this asteroid but agreed not to release its existence to the public to avoid panic. This possibility extends to comets and other Near Earth Objects. B) It is also possible that the Solar System is approaching a black hole. This possible black hole has either not been spotted or the governments of the world are covering it up as discussed earlier. Therefore, it is possible, albeit unlikely, that the world will end in 2012. C) Nuclear fallout could happen in 2012. There is no reason to believe that this can't happen. Therefore, it is possible that the world will end in 2012. With these three possibilities, it is impossible to conclude with certainty that the world will not end in 2012. We do not have the foresight to come to that conclusion. The resolution is negated.
The President Needs to be Born in American

IntroI'm sorry that pro misunderstood by term. I said--as you can clearly read--that the debate would NOT be based solely on a legal basis. However, that doesn't mean legal arguments can't be used so I accept his case. But he should provide a case for why a legal reason is important enough to dictate the outcome of the resolution.Legal ArgumentPro made it quite clear what the constitution says and how that takes precedent in our law. He showed that there have been attempts to over-turn it but they have failed. However, I see, that in this, he has dismissed his own case by revealing that it is indeed legally possible to overturn that law. This means it is not entirely binding. There is no legal, "need" for the president to be natural-born since it is a most basic principle of our government that it can be fundamentally changed. As long as there is a possibility of it changing, it is not a complete requirement.Reality ArgumentThis argument involves the possibility of things actually occurring. There is a popular controversy over whether Barack Obama is a natural-born citizen or not. Indeed, we wouldn't be having this debate right now if it weren't for this fact. And of course, there would be no such controversy if there weren't at least some possibility that it could be true. Someone born outside the United States could theoretically achieve appointment to the office of president if they kept the fact hidden or manipulated the power structure they oversee to keep them from befalling the legal consequences of it. Thus there is no "need", in reality, for the president to be born in the US.Moral ArgumentMost importantly, there is no practical function of this law which requires the president to be natural-born. The men who wrote the constitution had many racist inclinations and this is the only reason the law exists. A person's place of birth says nothing inherent about their ability to lead a nation or how they will lead it. Thus, there is no moral "need" for the president to be born in the US.ConclusionI have presented solid cases for all reasonable interpretations of what a "need" might dictate. Pro will need to disprove all of them to claim the resolution.WEED WEED WEED JUST KEEP SMOKIN THAT WEED :D
The President Needs to be Born in American

The ConstitutionAs my opponent has requested, we will discuss this on a legal basis. The Constitution clearly states that you must be born in the United States in order to be the president. No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. [1]So legally, the Constitution states that the President must be born in the United States and be a resident for 14 years. This is the law. Now, I don't know how you want to debate this "legally" outside of the Constitution.Supreme Law of the LandThe Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land meaning that it trumps all other laws. The Supremacy Clause states that this law, the President being born in the United States, trumps all other laws on the matter. [2] Constitutional AmendmentThere were a few attempts to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized citizens to run for the Presidency but it was shot down. The most recent attempt came in 2003 and was known as the Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment. The amendment gained very little support and died in Congress.Without the amendment the Constitution still stands as the the Supreme Law of the Land and therefore the President has to be born in the United States.The Resolution You stated that we must only debate the legality of this. Since we cannot argue outside of the law I am posting the law here and reminding you that you must argue only the legality of the resolution. Since the law is technically on my side you must then provide legal evidence that the President should not be born in the United States to be eligible. Now, due to this we cannot debate ideals but the law only.I plant my flag here behind the law. I am curious to see how you will shake me from this position using only legality. Thank you. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
School should start later, not earlier.

(Heh, I sound like a scholar. ) However, some ground rules:My BOP will be that school should start later. My opponent's BOP will be that school should start EARLIER. Structure:Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: ARGUMENTS ONLYRound 3: REBUTTALS ONLYRound 4: POLISHING UP ONLY (no new arguments and/or rebuttals allowed. )Rules:Plagiarism not allowedForfeiture not allowedSwearing not allowedSpamming not allowedTrolling not allowedBreaking structure of debate is not allowed. Personal attacks are not allowed. Violating ANY one of these rules results in a full loss of ALL seven points. By accepting, these points will go unargued, and you agree to everything above. Under NO cicumstances will ANYTHING in this round be changed. Good luck to the opposition.
Participation Debate

I'm actually going to debate this, so sorry for whats next. giving a person a restriction on the voting is a reliable way of ensuring that no accounts of a) vote bombing b)unreliability c) preference votes are made A) preventing people from voting until 3 arguments later means that no one can vote bomb. To see this, lets put this into a situation like some before. a user starts a debate with another user. After the debate, the user sees that many of the people voted for his opponent, leaving cruel and malicious comments behind. This person, enraged by his mocking, will attempt to the same to others, crumbling the user-friendly claim this site has tried to build up. People like Izbo10 (1) (thank god he is gone) and other users make up the backbone of this legion of malicious users, who insult the people behind a user name and a computer screen. B) A new user may be unreliable because he is new to the concept of debating. Now say this person enters a debate called 'Black-ops and Minecraft', if the user prefers the Black Ops side at the beginning, he may skip the entire series of arguments and go straight to vote bombing minecraft, further proving my first argument and my 3rd argument of preference voting. Sources http://www.debate.org... I now leave it up to the users to decide whether or not new and unexperienced users should be allowed to vote on Debate.org
schools should not give work over the summer

Like I said, working over the summer is much less than working during the day during the school year. Also, it helps to prevent brain drain in students which improves education and future employment prospects.Also, giving students summers off is disingenuous to reality. In the real world, workers do not get summers off and have to work 5-6 days a week all year long, year after year. Giving summers to students makes them lazy by causing them to expect time off. Summer work is good for students.
schools should not give work over the summer

Summer work prevents brain drain. This study showed how summer school helped students achieve higher spots in universities. [1] If summer school helps students then summer work would also help (even if to a lesser degree) and is better than no work at all.Teachers spend the first weeks of school reteaching things from the year before, summer work tries to either prevent this or ease this.Not working all summer is not good for students. [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk...;
Reform of the death penalty

What I'm proposing here is this. We should only focus on mass murdered, serial killers, and persons who torture children. We should have one trail for these individuals who commit these crimes. The death penalty is reach on unanimous 12-member jury finds "beyond a reasonable doubt" that they were met. Given the carnage in the Florida Parkland shooter here and the callous manner in which the shooter went about causing it, the prosecution would not have much difficulty meeting the burden. So once the jury find this person guilty of these crimes. The death penalty then should be in place immediately. After a week or two he should be sentenced to death by lethal injection.One. It will diminish the cost of the trail dramatically.Second. It will save the taxpayer millions, on the trail and incarnating that person.Third. These cases would be special. Meaning it will only be for these mass murders and persons who torture children.Fourth. It would be a universal law. Meaning the federal government will be hearing it. It would be for all 50 states.Fifth. "Prosecutors can identify at least three such factors here, where Cruz: 1) created a grave risk of death to many people; 2) acted in a way that was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel; and 3) committed the act in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner."(1)Sixth. If the government can start a war and stop a war. Then why can't they step in on serious heinous crimes. Such as mass shooters?Seventh. Why should these mass shooters, or serial killers stay alive? What is the point for them to stay in jail for the rest of their lives?Eighth. Other countries has a more affected way of handling big crime. Like "China has the largest population on Earth with 1.3 billion people; 5,000 executions would mean one in every 260,000 residents."(2) they also use lethal injection.Ninth. "EYE for an EYE" "mean we can punish, or even take revenge upon, someone in the exact same manner they used to harm us" "There are only FOUR places in the King James Bible where the phrase "eye for eye" (or slight variation) occurs (Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21 and Matthew 5:38)" (3.) Why does the bible get it right?Sources1. https://www.cnn.com...2. https://www.theatlantic.com...3. http://www.biblestudy.org...In your first argument, i wasn't sure if you were for or against. Justssaid this "Some crimes are so heinous and inherently wrong that they demand strict penalties " up to and including life sentences or even death. Most Americans recognize this and would rather just be put down." so this wasn't a clear path for being against the death penalty.Either way, what i'm proposing is a totally reform of this current system. Making it cost efficient, and not wasting any more time on these horrible human being. A reminder my system is for the wrost of the worst. Meaning only mass murderers, serial killers and for torturing children to death. This system is for Those individual And that's it. The floor is yours.....By the way thank you for accepting and inviting me to this debate...
Reform of the death penalty

We do not need to reform of the death penalty. definition the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime. we reserve the death penalty in the United States for the most heinous murders and the most brutal and conscienceless murderers So someone that gets sencestes to the death penalty has already Murder related to the smuggling of aliens,Destruction of aircraft, motor vehicles, or related facilities resulting in death, Murder committed during a drug-related drive-by shooting,Murder committed at an airport serving international civil aviation,Murder of a member of Congress, an important executive official, or a Supreme Court Justice or something along those lines. Also "Some crimes are so heinous and inherently wrong that they demand strict penalties " up to and including life sentences or even death. Most Americans recognize this and would rather just be put down.
Mosquitos should not exist.

I will respond to his points in the same way he responded to my own. 1) What I mean by the statement that I made was that everything was made for a purpose. Like the pencil, it was made so that we have something to write with. Just think about everything in your surroundings. Every single one of them was designed to have a specific purpose that affects you. On the insect side, however, every bug has a purpose, even if it is just to add to our fascination or emotional hightening. Like the bee, for example, it produces honey. And the butterfly, who doesn't get happier just by lookin at the pretty wings of a butterfly? Now, think of a mosquito. It is an ugly little creature, and instead of providing us with any joy, it detracts from our happiness and ulitmately even our well-being. A mosquito constantly buzzes around you and provokes irration, and it also spread deadly diseases. 2) Using my opponent's source, this statement that I made is further supported. As quoted from his souce Wikipedia, it states, " Mosquitoes are a vector agent that carries disease-causing viruses and parasites from person to person without catching the disease themselves. .. .Mosquitoes are estimated to transmit disease to more than 700 million people annually in Africa, South America, Central America, Mexico and much of Asia with millions of resulting deaths. " This statistic further supports why mosquitos are detrimental to society. Although it may be true that the world does not revolve around us human-beings, this part is inevitable. How many forests are plowed down each day for our purposes, killing all the animal inhabitants of that forest? Whether we like it or not, the world that we live in now revolves around us humans. This part is inevitable. Therefore, the statement that "mosquitos should not exist" from my point of view is true for the reasons I have listed above. I look foward to reading my opponent's response in the next round. Thanks again for accepting.