BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legalizing Marijuana

My opponent makes the claim that you are unable to tell if someone has been smoking weed and that leaves room for accidents if the person is driving a car but this is just not true at all. A tell tale sign of someone who is under the influence is bloodshot eyes. Another way to tell is if the person under suspicion is on marijuana is if there they are reacting slowly. For example if they were pulled over you could do a simple reflex test and have a fair enough idea if they were. That combined with a urine sample would be a good way to determine if the person is high. (1) I am excited for Con's argument. (1). http://www.ehow.com...
Community college should be the first college people attend

Questions: 1. What is the value that 4-Year colleges have that you are comparing? Is it the monetary cost or something else? 2. Are you in agreement that going to community college first is cheaper, or is that not your argument? I didn't quite understand what your argument against the cost was. If you could please answer these the best you can, I would be able to understand your argument better. Response: I understand He_Needs_Some_Milk_69 argument as that it is inconvenient to go to community college because you have to go to a four-year university anyway (please correct me if I misunderstand). -I agree that it is more convenient, but it costs more. I have shown that the College Board says that it is cheaper to start with community college. Based on price alone, it seems that it is beneficial to go this route instead of going straight to a four-year college. -I also found evidence for the argument that people who complete community college with an Associate's Degree have a higher chance of getting a Bachelor’s Degree within 10 years (1). Although only 33% of community college students transfer to 4-year colleges, students who transferred with an Associate's Degree had a 48% chance of graduating compared to 35% chance for students who transferred without an Associate's Degree (1). I would like to know if there is something that four-year colleges have that isn't present in community colleges. Resources1. http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu...
Community college should be the first college people attend

There are many reasons why people choose to go to a University first, rather than a Community College. Rebuttal: "By benefit, I mean that it would cost less money for students over the time it takes to get a 4 year degree." Yes, the financial cost is remarkably lower. But, a vast majority of Community Colleges only offer a 2 year degree program. That is only worth an Associates Degree. With this being said, if you wanted to work harder towards a Bachelor's degree, you'd have to move to a University, or find a four year Community College to transfer to. Even then, that is IF the class is transferable. It's not necessarily less money either. When transferring into a University, most colleges charge full price for every class you still needed to take. Therefore, you're getting a somewhat better deal, but not much. If you're going to live on campus, that's even more. It's better in cases of class size, but the education value is much better at a University. Resources: 1. https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org... 2. http://www.collegeconfidential.com... 3. http://economics.ucdavis.edu...
Community college should be the first college people attend

I argue that more people would benefit from going to community college first rather than going straight to a four year university.Definitions:Community College will be any college that is state/government funded and is a 2 year institution.By benefit, I mean that it would cost less money for students over the time it takes to get a 4 year degree.Argument:People should start with community college for a few reasons:>. Most community colleges have smaller class sizes compared to 4-year colleges (3).>. When the cost of community college is lowered, slightly more students enroll in college then they would have if tuition remained the same (1) According to the College Board's website, the average cost of community college for in-district students is $3,440 on average. A public 4-year college, accepting students in-state, is $9,410 on average (2).>. Community college was found to increase the number of people obtaining their Bachelor's Degree slightly (1).I would be convinced to the Con/Against side if someone could show why my sources are incorrect or what evidence there is to the contrary.Sources:1. http://economics.ucdavis.edu...2. https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org...3. https://www.educationquest.org...I look forward to debating with you.
Nobody should be able to cast more votes then have been cast at themselves.

Apologies, I didn't realise the problem was that you didn't understand my argument. I'll make the problem simpler.1) Nobody has any votes to give out.2) This is because they haven't recieved any votes. 3) This is because nobody has any votes to give out. 4) So nobody can ever vote. 5) This system is a closed circle.6) Your idea is silly.A vote-for-vote system is ridiclous and wouldn't work.
Nobody should be able to cast more votes then have been cast at themselves.

It sounds like you are arguing the big bang theory, like chicken or egg? well the fact is that this is here and now, not a debate over how it began, as that is a separate issue that I am sure you would love to proclaim yourself judge of. I made a statement, you declared yourself as an opponent, therefore, the BOP is yours, and I am sure that it hasn't existed yet, except soon it wil by your own typo. hmmmmmmmmmmm, then, so be it. Only the happy executioners will judge this.
Nobody should be able to cast more votes then have been cast at themselves.

Thanks to Pro for the interesting proposition. I intend to convince my opponent and the voting constituency that a vote-per-vote system would be totally inoperable.So how would anybody vote in the first place?Let us take two scenarios.Scenario 1:All votes already posted on DDO votes remain as they are, however from now on, in order to vote, you must have received at least one vote. Token-for-token, you must receive votes to vote.Problem is, who votes first? How to we 'generate' more votes as more users come online? Do we all just pass around one initial vote? This is absurd.Scenario 2:All votes are retroactively tallied, and you receive the number of privilege votes respective to the number of votes cast on your debates. Once again, while there are now more votes in the 'pie', there is so scope for the pie to grow. We must all pass around an existing number of votes. This method is completely unsustainable.DDO already has a voting privileges scheme in place.While you argue that people vote but don't submit themselves to judgment, all DDO users must participate in three debates before being able to unlock voting privileges(1). This is a much more reasonable system.This is how democracy works.Your argument is analogous to saying that only politicians can vote. You say, "...they throw judgement out as their right, but never let themselves be judged". This is called democracy. They are not obligated to submit themselves. Should we rescind your right to vote for the Libertarian Party just because you've never been elected as a representative before?Report unfair votingProvided voting is done within the DDO policy framework, then there is no issue with people 'dishing out votes'. Unfair votes should be reported for mediation or removal, and the potential for revokation ofrevocationvoting privileges explored. Other than this, people should feel free to vote as they please. The resolution is negated: a vote-per-vote system is not desirable._________________________(1) [http://www.debate.org...]
Kentucky is better than Duke

As a Kentucky fan, your point of view will obviously be very subjective. Whereas me, a 57 year Englishman with no interest in basketball will obviously look for a few suitable statistics, to try and offer a rational argument. At the end of the proverbial day, what's most important is that there are two comparable teams, who will provide you with an exciting and rewarding evening of entertainment. Good luck Kentucky and good luck Kylie.Cunningham.
Gay Marriage should be legalized!

I begin my concluding my argument by first Saying that this is the begins of you're article "The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively. Nothing in there says separation of church and state which again was a suggestion. Homosexuality as you said happens in the wild, which in the scientific sense means that it is natural, but if we look at it from God's point which was heterosexual marriage it is completely and utterly unnatural. And yes Hetero was invented by God just as Homo was invented by Cicero. In the economic spectrum you said that gay marriage raised New Jersey 248 billion dollars, but you failed to mention the protest and court cases gays fie that closes business and forces people to lose jobs. Homosexual couples on average only make about 2 million dollars more then the average heterosexual couples(CNN). And finally I'm not saying the abuse in homosexual homes is worse, just that is is much less publicized. I end on this Homosexuality as never been good without attacking some random institution that refuses them service, as my oppent neglected to mention. This ladies and Gentlemen is one of the many reasons Homosexuality is bad.- Batman3773
Gay Marriage should be legalized!

Uhhh... Sorry buddy. Yes, it does say that church and state are separated- http://en.wikipedia.org... https://www.google.com... ------ Homosexuality occurs in nature, and is therefore natural. Cars, Trucks, WiFi, Computers, etc. are unnatural, so don't be a hypocrite when writing your arguments against Gay Marriage, considering you are using an unnatural device to debate. ------ Gay Marriage did help New Jersey. $248 million is not "nothing". And, you said yourself, homosexual and heterosexuals have the same amount of abuse in their homes, so why did you act like it's somehow worse in the homosexual's homes? ------ Homosexuality was never truly "invented". It simply has always been in nature. Just like heterosexuality. So, I guess heterosexuality was invented too, as there was always that first person who was a hetero? Yeah, no. Nice try though. ------ I conclude my debate with this- it saddens me to know I cannot argue with whatever this guy throws at me next, so if you see him making claims, look them up. Same with me, or anyone else on this website. -AgainstFor
Gay Marriage should be legalized!

Interesting how you said that we didn't invent gay marriage when the man who founded it Cicero(wikipeadia) was the first man to be betrothed to a anther man, thus meaning he invented it. As for the bottle nose dolphin they aren't gay, in fact both the male and female dolphins mate with the opposite gender. Thus meaning this is in fact unnatural. As for economics Gays are barley better then the average joe. Now lots of homosexual homes are very unsafe in fact according to The Center for American Progress, a very Liberal site might I add said that "Homosexuals have the same amount of abuse as hetrosexual homes". Your friend simple got lucky with his parents. So to conclude gay marriage is unnatural, and it is not safe in some cases for children.
Gay Marriage should be legalized!

What do you mean there is no need for it? I think there IS a need for everyone to be equal. And, it is actually good that there are gay marriages, because kids who are in need of parents can be adopted by those who can't have children. I know someone, by the way, who was adopted by a gay couple. He is perfectly fine, and is not in an "unhealthy" environment. He is unaffected by the marriage of his adopters. Also, read this quote from a website: "The Williams Institute at UCLA Law School estimated the positive economic impact of legalizing gay marriage in New Jersey to be $248 million over three years, creating 800 new jobs, and bringing in an additional $19 million in government revenues." - gaymarriage.procon.org It also has a good affect on the economy! --Other points-- Homosexuality isn't unnatural. Definition of 'natural' - existing in or caused by nature. Last I checked, we humans didn't "invent" homosexuality. It happens with A LOT of other mammals like Bottle Nosed Dolphins, one of the smartest mammals on Earth! What is unnatural, however, is things like Cars, Trucks, WiFi, Computers, Phones, Consoles, and much more. So, you shouldn't have a problem with unnatural things if you are using one of them to argue with me.
the NCAA ought to represent student athletes as employees under the fair labor standards act

Do they work hard? Student Athletes have only experienced what it is like to be in school. They have gotten used to a school society which is usually a very stereotypical society, These students have not experienced the real world and will definitely find it hard to fit in and step into big roles as they are not used to it. They are still learning children, and should have the opportunity to take it step by step and do bigger things in life after education.
Christianity is the most rationally based faith

"Everything within the scope of causing a miraculous event to happen."I thought the word of God would be more specific to make it more clear to the followers,but it doesn't happen even when we use hermeneutics. Doesn't God wants his followers to read and understand the Bible by using hermeneutics?" How is it likely for people to make those kinds of predictions? Predicting it will rain is more likely than predicting that false messiahs will proclaim themselves as the true one thousands of years later don't you think?"If you consider the amount of people born in the entire world in 2000~ years it would be outstanding if from all those people no one would ever question and mock the Christian God,even when the Christians themselves mocked other gods and were already mocked. And i don't see anyone in those times saying they are Jesus or the Messiah and being deceived. And even if someone did it would still be easy to have some crazy guy in around all those people saying he is the Messiah and convince some people. Considering the world now has a population of 7.183 billions people[1],what is already a a gigantic number,the amount of people born in 2000~ years would be colossal."At the time that the event was predicted to happen, it was far separated from thousands of years into the future. Where is the evidence that people forced the event of the Temple to happen throughout that time period?"The bible doesn't give the specific time it would happen,just vague hints that mean nothing. And what i meant was that people reading the bible would follow the predictions of the end and try to prove they are correct,by forcing them to happen. They are only building the temple because the bible said there would be a temple,and this idea has been there since the 19th century[2].They are building a temple but the other predictions they can't force are not happening."Where's the scientific evidence to back up the claims of Buddhism? And other religions? The fact that the Bible's claim alone of people"You have the BoP,and you didn't say anything about Satanism or Deism. Satanism is a religion,but it doesn't make any claims,it just aims to create an objective morality for their followers,one better and more clear than the Bible,and Deism has the evidences that point to a creator,like laws that seem to be completely arbitrary,like gravity,electrical polarities[3] or time. There isn't a "why" to certain fundamental laws of the universe,they just work like that because they do. And i have no idea what you meant after that.[1]:http://www.census.gov... [2]:http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]:http://en.wikipedia.org...
Christianity is the most rationally based faith

"It literally refers to "every thing" in Greek" Everything within the scope of causing a miraculous event to happen. How is it likely for people to make those kinds of predictions? Predicting it will rain is more likely than predicting that false messiahs will proclaim themselves as the true one thousands of years later don't you think? "Again,no i didn't,i'm just saying that if i predict something and then force it to happen i don't think it is very credible. In my rock example,do you think i would be able to predict everything after forcing my prediction to be true?If there was some prediction in the Qur'an that could be forced would you think they were true too because people who followed it made it happen?" At the time that the event was predicted to happen, it was far separated from thousands of years into the future. Where is the evidence that people forced the event of the Temple to happen throughout that time period? Where's the scientific evidence to back up the claims of Buddhism? And other religions? The fact that the Bible's claim alone of people
Christianity is the most rationally based faith

I will define a Christian and rational A Christian - A person who follows the teachings of Christ. basically, someone who strictly obey what the Bible says. (we'll talk later about denominations) Rational - Agreeable to reason and factually based on methods such as science I start with addressing the existence of God. I argue that we should only believe in God when he reveals himself to us. Now this might be subjective, but so is every humans with an experience. I cannot prove to you that God exists no more than you can prove to me that a tree exists unless I see it and choose to accept it. To pick the natural world and reject the supernatural is to be biased. Now for biblical interpretation. There is a strict procedure for studying the Bible known as hermeneutics. It incorporates science, logic, history, linguistics, archaeologicy, literature, etc. No other religion i know is that factually based. Canon - Which books belong? The books that fit together with the history of Israel and God and his character. Authorship, date of composition, literature, and consistency with the rest of the books. Authors - The Bible was written by people inspired by God from all wakes of life such as doctors, philosophers, theologians, farmers, kings, wise men, poor people, rabbis, fishermen, tax collectors, etc. Whereas other religions like Islam stick to one author. If you want to find out what God is saying, study that particular author and come to a logical conclusion. Creation - No other religion has such a rational and scientifically accurate account of creation than Genesis. For example, many ancient religions obviously give mythical elements to their stories, while Genesis is very realistic. Why aren't you supposed to worship idols and the sun? because they are simply creations of the creator God. Pure logic. History - Many of the events, people, etc have been proven as authentic which will help guide you to a rational conclusion on faith. Most of the events of the Bible were witnessed by thousands, leaving no room for bias and deception. Prophecy - We as Christians base our beliefs on empirical evidence of Jesus fulfilling many biblical prophecies, so it safeguards against simple biased opinions. Interpretation - The Christian is to interpret Scripture as it is and base his/her life on Scripture. There is no room for private opinions.
The Ressurection of Jesus

Opening arguments: 1) The gospels were written long after the alleged ressurection happened, so therefore they can't be reliable. In fact, they were most likely forgeries. 2) They all contradict one another. You would think that a topic that makes or breaks a religion wouldn't have any contradictions, but the crucifixion/ressurection story is full of discrepancies between the four gospels. 3) "Why couldn't the Phairasees show the dead body of Christ to silence the believers? " Perhaps for the simple reason is that it was too badly decomposed that no-one could prove that it was Jesus. After all, if the gospels were true then why wait forty years after the events to write it down? 4) The gospels were most certainly not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. We know this since by the status of the deciples, they wouldn't have been able to read, let alone right. In addition, the gospels are written in Greek; however, the desiple's native tongue was Aramaic. That's all for this round. I now turn it over to con!
The Ressurection of Jesus

In this debate I shall attempt to prove the ressurection of Jesus was fabricated amd that it has never even happened. Rules: 1) We both have burden of proof. 2) My opponent must believe in the resurrection. 3) Voters, please read the entire debate before posting. 4) Voters, don't vote only on your opinions. Round 1 is only for accepting Round 2 is for opening arguments Round 3 and 4rebuttals and strengthening your arguments Round 5 is for closing arguments. Good luck!
Catholic Christianity's beliefs are false

1. You misinterpret my argument. First, in the event that a new potentially-mass appealing religion if formed, we generally can expect to see oppositions from religious authorities who may be threatened by that religion. For instance, when Christianity began it threatened to displace established religions such as Judaism and the State Church of the Roman Empire. However, we see no record of the virgin birth (one of the central justifying pillar of the religion at that point) being contested. This in conjunction with the previous establishment of God makes the virgin birth at the very least prima facie plausible. Pro however hasn't responded to either of these points.2. Pro has no response to my point here. He merely retracts back to the claim that differing interpretations simply give off a "vibe" that Catholic Christianity could be wrong. Vibes are not arguments.3. The argument employed here suggests that the reasoning behind the various religions are the same. However, since there are different supporting points in defense of different religions, this point falls apart. On Pro's point that arguments against one God are arguments against another, while this is true, it doesn't mean much since Pro hasn't actually forwarded an argument against God, just individual Catholic tenets. 4. There was no refutation of the Joseph-Jesus parallels because (1) Pro didn't make an argument, he just posted a link and (2) I already provided documentary evidence for the independent existence of Jesus which Pro has yet to bring an argument against.Side note: I'm an atheist yes but that doesn't mean I don't think Jesus existed.5. Pro's bringing personal anecdotes into the debate now. That's not a coherent argument against Catholic Christianity. At best it's an argument against the methods of justification the people referenced used in religious debates.6. Pro claims his argument is pretty obvious but I have yet to see it. All he's doing is repeating and repeating Catholic beliefs regarding hell and expecting everyone to have the same knee-jerk reactions as him. This isn't an argument though.7. Again, Pro hasn't given an argument. He's simply saying my evidence wasn't enough? Why? We'll never know because Pro didn't grace us with a reason.8. Again with the personal anecdotes. See refutation of Point 5.10. Pro's right. This point is basically the same as Point 2. See above for full refutation.11. Pro is basically just ignoring the fact that I showed the entire base of his argument to be fallacious. Just ignoring that and saying your argument still works just because doesn't prove anything. Take an example. If I said the sky wasn't blue because Jimmy has a dumb reason for thinking it so, that would be commuting the genetic fallacy. It's a fallacy because I'm not actually arguing against the content of the belief itself, just someone's reason for holding them. Pro's simple ignorance of the fallacy doesn't make his argument any more valid.