BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Prayer in school is justified and ought to be legal.

First, my opponent made a valid point about the way I phrased the resolution. It does in fact allow to much room for different interpretations, I apologize as this is my first debate on this site. Both my opponents and my attacks and defenses are based on our different interpretations of the stated resolution. To clarify, my intent was forced prayer in school or a set time for prayer in schools and this is what my arguments are based on. I would like to continue the round based on this. If my opponent does not accept this then I will forfeit as judging will be impossible with 2 interpretations. Moving on, I will defend based on my interpretation. Contention 1- by making a law that forces prayer or sets a preset time for prayer congress is making a law in respect to an established religion, thus violating this clause Contention 2- same thing as first, under my interpretation a set prayer time does violate the wall of separation. Even with my opponents interp though, prayer directed by state officials does violate the wall. People wearing crosses does not as they are not affecting anyone else. Contention 3- Setting aside a time for prayer does violate the free exercise clause as it imposes religion on the nonreligious. Moving on to my opponents case. Contention 1- My opponent said they are not advocating the institution of prayer. By going pro (again I apologize for poor phrasing in the res.) they are advocating prayer in school. Contention 2- Again it is difficult for me to refute this do to my mistake in phrasing, if an agreement is reached I will refute this then. Please do not count this as dropped as at present I cannot rebut this. Thank you
Prayer in school is justified and ought to be legal.

Thank you for accepting, I will now move on to my arguments. Contention 1- Prayer in school is in violation of the first amendments establishment clause. The establishment clause states that government may not favor one religion over another or religion over no religion. By instituting prayer in school the government is favoring religion over no religion at all which blatantly violates the establishment clause. Contention 2- Prayer in school violates the wall between church and state. Religion is supposed to be separated from government matters, by instituting prayer in school religion is being brought into a government institution which is illegal. Contention 3- Prayer in school violates a persons right to practice whatever religion they wish. In the United States all people have the right to practice whatever religion they wish or practice on religion at all. By putting prayer in schools, we are violating a persons inherent right to practice no religion at all. Now I will move on to my opponents case. My opponent said in their first contention that the first amendment allows free practice of religion under the free exercise clause. Under the exercise clause though people also have the right to practice on religion at all, by instituting prayer in school we actually violate the first amendment. In their second contention they said that prayer in school is already legal. This is not so. In the supreme court case Engel v. Vitale, the court ruled that prayer in school was a violation of the free exercise and establishment clauses and was not legal. I have now presented my arguments and rebutted my opponents. Thank you.
Prayer in school is justified and ought to be legal.

Since no country was specified in the opening round I will assume that we are arguing within the confines of the United States of America's legal system. Contention 1 The first amendment to the US constitution guarantees all people the right to freely practice their religion [1]. This amendment to the constitution guarantees that everyone in America is free to exercise their religion in any way that does not directly infringe upon the rights of another person. Prayer is a non-invasive form of religious expression, therefore as long as praying does not interrupt an official school function such as regular classes or gatherings there is no legal basis for it not being allowed. Contention 2 Praying in school is already legal. Prayer in school is legal. Anyone in school can pray as long as they are not a disruption. The only other restrictions placed on praying in school is that teachers are not allowed to promote or demote any religion because as employees of the state doing so would violate the first amendment. With that I conclude my opening argument and wish my opponent luck as I await his arguments and rebuttals. [1] . http://www.archives.gov...
There is currently an enviromental crisis in the United States

First of all where is your proof? Your graphs and evidence in your constructive seems to be missing. At present there is clearly nothing going on! As I said before, fossil fuels have gotten cleaner, this is due to not just clean coal technology but many other factors! Natural Gas is cleaner than ever, the EPA even supports it! There is also a graph made by the EPA themselves that states that the number of pollution has gone down! Before you proclaim that I am a ranting mad man, take a look at my evidence and give your evidence*-
Abortion: Infanticide, plain and simple.

As I was saying, that's one good argument from me and one bad argument from my opponent.I'm going to make another argument, though. This argument is adapted from Judy Jarvis Thompson's famous violinist analogy.[1]Suppose you woke up and found yourself attached to a famous violinist who needed your organs to stay alive for the next nine months. Even though it may be kind and generous of you if you let said violinist remain attached to use your organs, surely you would have no obligation to stay attached. Given your own bodily sovereignty, you would be justified in refusing the use of your body parts even if it meant the violinist would die as a result.Likewise, even if the unborn is a full member of the human family (i.e. it is fully a human person), a woman would still be justified in abortion because of her bodily sovereignty. She has the right to say who can and can't use her body.[1] http://spot.colorado.edu...
Abortion: Infanticide, plain and simple.

I am pro-life, but I'm going to play devil's advocate in this debate and be pro-choice. Do not fear the large number of rounds. We have a 1000 character limit. My case: 1. A woman has a right to sovereignty over her own body. 2. Abortion is an exercise of sovereignty over one's own body. 3. Therefore, a woman has a right to have an abortion. Since you can't have a right to do a wrong, it follows that abortion is not wrong. Con's case: I. Even if abortion is harmful to a woman's health, that doesn't make it wrong. Hard manual labor is also harmful to one's health, but it's immoral for that reason. II. A possum also has a heart beat. That doesn't mean it's wrong to take the life of a possum. III. Breaking up with your girlfriend can also cause psychological damage, but that doesn't make it wrong. IV. "That's her problem" doesn't even amount to an argument. Therefore, it requires no response. Conclusion That's one good argument from me, and four bad arguments from Con.
Abortion: Infanticide, plain and simple.

Abortion is psychologically, mentally, and medically wrong. It damages the lives of the mother, the family around the mother, and kills an unborn baby, which is very much alive. First of all, abortion is not a naturally induced way to dispose, if you will, of an unwanted pregnancy. This means it is obviously detrimental to the health of any woman who decides to get an abortion. Secondly, a baby in the womb has a heartbeat after 8 weeks at the latest. a heartbeat, no matter how it is assisted, is an indication of life. Thirdly, when a woman gets an abortion, she suffers any number of harmful damage to the mind. This is because she started to develop a mental maternal link to her soon-to-be baby. That speaks for itself. Lastly, in the case of rape, if a woman is too ashamed to carry a baby for nine months and then give it up to adoption, then that's her problem. Not to sound harsh, but it's not so hard to do that. All in all, I'm hoping we can have a good debate. Let's be respectful, OK?
Drinking and smoking are sins.

OMG I didn't know I was PRO damn, really it was a mistake that some of the articles are taking about smoking. Well then back to the debate. Well then I now show that drinking isn't a sin, but it can lead to sins. It can lead to adultry (cheating on wife or premarital sex) or other things. Drinking leads to want to drink more (Borracho) drunk. Smoking said to me by my congregation is a sin, because smoking takes away your life which is a sin.
Drinking and smoking are sins.

NOTE: I would like to debate a fellow Christian on this topic so we are not comparing apples to oranges. I believe there are many assumed truths that are ruining modern day Christianity as we know it. One of the biggest ones is that drinking and smoking are sins. I have contemplated this issue for quite some time, In fact for a long time I fell for the false ideology myself. However after thumbing through the bible and researching the topic through other books I have come to the conclusion that drinking and smoking are not sins! These kinds of assumptions make Christians look stupid. After all If drinking and smoking are sins wouldn't that mean that everyone who drinks or smokes regularly is going to Hell because they are constantly separating them from God? Sadly this kind of a notion is a common misconception that many closed minded Christians come up with and it does nothing but turn people off to Christianity as a whole. Although I know these Christians have good intentions, most of the time their stupidity ends up doing more harm then good. So it is my wish to debate any Christian who disagrees with me so I can prove to them and the rest of the world that drinking and smoking are not sins. Hopefully this will also help distinguish the idea that all Christians are closed minded and stupid. And maybe just maybe make Christians stop and think before they go and assume something as dumb as this again. Because at the end of they day we all know what Assuming does to people. It makes an A$S out of yoU and ME (D)! And I am sick of stupid Christians making an a$s out of me. So there fore I want to put an end to this ridiculous notion that is harming the church.
Drinking and smoking are sins.

Well you said that "Now I realize there are some Christians who may have been former alcoholics and they cant have just one drink without having another and another and winding up trashed" My how doesn't know he's alcoholic, he drinks all the time for 12 years, joined the Jehovah Witnesses was a preacher ,but in one month he gave and turn back to a drinker. Not putting this to a point, but people that can control maybe 5-10% can stop, but many people can't stop. Really hard to put down a beer or Vodka. But people drinking and driving can lead to DUI, DWI, or manslaughter (crash) or Assault, rape, murder, and more.
Knowledge is Strictly Empirical

R1 is for acceptance and clarification of terms. It is my opponent's responsibility to cast doubt upon my argument.Empiricism is the epistemological belief that we derive all knowledge from sense datum.Knowledge is our understanding of an object's identity and its relations to other objects. It is important to recognize that knowledge describes objects in a relative field. For example, I understand that I am where I am due to my ability to observe my surroundings.
Donald Trump is Using a Hitler Strategy

Pro has declared that Hitler did not start out using certain tactics and that we should assume Donald Trump is guilty of using these tactics in the future. Since we do not have a time machine, the ability to read Trump's mind, nor are we omnipotent or omniscient, it would be a logical fallacy, in my opinion, to simply say he is going to be guilty of something he has not done, has not indicated he will do, and shows no evidence that he will do. As the prosecuter in this case, it is Pro's obligation to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Trump is guilty of "using Hitler tactics. " You must decide whether Pro has done that or not. I, as the defender of Trump in this case, have the obligation of placing a reasonable doubt into your mind as to whether Donald Trump was guilty of, is guilty of, and will be guilty of using Adolph Hitler's Nazi strategy to try and gain support and power. Pro says that Trump is anti-Muslim. I say he is using discernment to try and figure out exactly what the threat is. Pro says that Trump is a narcisist. I say we haven't had a professional ask him questions and/or follow up questions to determine this. Pro says we can't take Trumps word for it when he says he is pro Christian, isn't anti-Muslim, and when he says he has Muslim friends who support him. I say we do not have a good case against his credibility to determine such an accusation. Pro says Trump has studied Hitler for years. I say so have I, and it wasn't out of empathy of his ways or a desire to use his methods in the future. It was because I am interested in history and politics. I have many books about Hitler. I am quite gentle and nonaggresive in real life. There is no law against studying the history of Hitler, Stalin, or Napolean. That is the beauty of the free, democratic world.
Donald Trump is Using a Hitler Strategy

I have many, many friends who are Muslim and they're great people," Trump said. "And some of them, not all of them ... but many of them called me and they said, 'You know what, Donald? You're right. We have a problem.'" www.tvguide.com/news/donald-trump-jimmel-kimmel-live-muslim-ban Trump also"insisted he was not a racist nor a bigot, and said it didn't bother him if others described him that way." "If that were true it would bother me tremendously," he said. m.huffpost.com/us/entry/donald-trump-muslim-friends_5668eb43e4b0f290e522021c IN THE wake of the kerfuffle at a New Hampshire town hall event, in which Donald Trump declined to counter a questioner"s statement that Barack Obama is Muslim, the GOP candidate went on to say that he has Muslim friends. This doesn"t surprise me. Muslims are very tolerant people. (Sept. 26) https://www.bostonglobe.com... "To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens." -Adolph Hitler https://www.goodreads.com... "It"s often argued that the American murder rate is high because guns are more available here than in other countries. Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed." -Donald Trump www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Donald_Trump_Gun_Control.htm A woman's world is her husband, her family, her children and her home. We do not find it right when she presses into the world of men. - Adolf Hitler "m not a crusader for feminism, and I"m not against it, either. I"m just oblivious to a person"s gender when it comes to hiring people and handing out assignments." ("Trump: Surviving at the Top") "It"s funny. My own mother was a housewife all her life. And yet it"s turned out that I"ve hired a lot of women for top jobs, and they"ve been among my best people. Often, in fact, they are far more effective than the men around them." ("Trump: The Art of the Deal") https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Coke or Pepsi

"In 2001, Coca-Cola tried to persuade people to drink Coca-Cola instead of water. They started with restaurant owners. "Olive Garden Restaurant Chain" accepted their offers. However, too much of drinking Coca-Cola could cause various chronic diseases. Moreover, diseases like blood acidosis, kidney stress, immune system suppression, mood swings can be caused by drinking too much Coca-Cola. Another hazardous ingredient is high-fructose corn syrup. It is linked with obesity.Coca-Cola causes cavities. It can cause high bacterial growth in teeth.The phosphate content of Coca-Cola is very high. This high phosphate pulls out calcium from bone. Another serious allegation against Coca-Cola in India is that it is causing heavy pollution. The Coca-Cola bottling plant in Plachimada, in South India has caused serious ground water pollution.In this writing I have focused only on the allegations brought against Coca-Cola but such allegations were more or less brought against other soft drink products. If you browse the net to know the negative effects of soft drinks on human health, you would find numerous websites containing quotes of various specialists and doctors and description of health problems of normal people. However, Coca-Cola has always denied these allegations and tried to prove that their products are safe. Coca-Cola should come up with a new slogan now, "Drink me I am safe."
proof god is not real

Pro argues that god did not create god. That is not proof that god is not real.Pro has identified nature as real.Pro has said nature is not created.Pro has not proven that god is not nature.If god is nature, then god is not created, so there is no need for god to create god.Pro has not proven god is not real.The debate topic is "proof god is not real". Burden of Proof is on Pro to prove that god is not real. I succeed if I show that Pro has not done this. I have shown that Pro has not proven that god is not real. I have not failed.
proof god is not real

Pro states god is a creator, but has not stated how being a creator prevents god from being nature or machine.Pro states nature is not created, but has not stated how not being created prevents god from being nature.Pro states life is nature, but has not stated how life being nature prevents god from being nature.Pro states nature is not machine, but has not state how nature not being machine prevents god from being machine.My original point stands. Pro has not proven that god is not real.
January/February LD Topic: Deadly force as a deliberate response to cases of domestic violence

Please try to keep this in standard LD format. I'm trying to prepare for a competition on January 6th. I'd prefer for my opponent to ask crossex questions and I will ask them questions for crossex, also. If you feel the need to ask for evidence, please do so. Try to keep this as realistic as possible. I'll wait for the affirmative to post his/her speech, then commence.
Science and Religion Are Incompatible

DEFINITIONS: SCIENCE is "a set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed or inferred phenomena, past or present, and aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation. In other words, science is a specific way of analyzing information with the goal of testing claims." [1] "...claims for the compatibility of science and religion...[are]...weak, resting on assertions about the nature of religion that few believers really accept...religion could never be made compatible with science without diluting it so seriously that it was no longer religion but humanist philosophy." [2] RELIGION is "action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence for, and desire to please, a divine ruling power; the exercise or practice of rites or observances implying this." [3] Alternatively, religion may be defined as "a particular system of faith or worship." [3] FAITH is "belief proceeding from reliance on testimony or authority." [3] Or, "belief in the truths of religion; belief in the authenticity of divine revelation (whether viewed as contained in Holy Scripture or in the teachings of the Church) and acceptance of the revealed doctrines." [3] SOURCES: [1] Michael Shermer, "Why People Believe Weird Things" [2] Jerry Coyne, "Faith vs. Fact" [3] Oxford English Dictionary ---- I will be arguing that science and religion are incompatible. My opponent will argue that there is no conflict between religion and science. Round 1 = Acceptance Round 2 = Opening Arguments Round 3 = Rebuttals Round 4 = Counter-Rebuttals Round 5 = Closing Remarks
Science and Religion Are Incompatible

In Round #2, I made the case that science and religion are incompatible as methods of apprehending truth. I was hoping for a debate about the methodology of science vs. religion in discovering truth.My opponent wanted to have a debate about Biblical prophecy. So, he threw out 10+ alleged "fulfilled prophecies" of the Bible. If the omniscient creator of the universe inspired the Bible, the prophecies could have been reallly impressive, i.e. "Americans will land on the moon in 1969." But we don't see those kinds of prophecies.Like I said, this is a "Gish gallop." So, I'll do my best to dispel all these "fulfilled prophecies" in one fell swoop.Most scientists (especially eminent scientists) do not believe in God and are not people of faith:"In 1997, the British science journal Nature published the results of a random sampling of 1,000 scientists...approximately 40 percent of scientists proclaimed a belief in a personal God." (1)"...in a follow-up study [Edward] Larson and [Larry] Witham controlled for "eminance," or what their predecessor James Leuba called the "greater" scientists -- those who held 'superior knowledge, understanding, and experience.'" [1]"...Larson and Witham found...that when eminance is controlled for, disbelief in God rose to 69 percent among biologists, and 79 percent for physicists. When "doubt" or "agnosticism" is factored in, actual belief in God among eminent scientists (averaged over all fields) drops to a paltry 7 percent." [1]"It should be emphasized that these figures are for Americans. The United Kingdom, Europe, and other developed nations of the world show lower levels of belief for both the general population and among scientists..." [1]These prophecies only impress those who are already Christians. Why do you think that is?[1] Michael Shermer, "How We Believe"
Science and Religion Are Incompatible

I'm dealing with a "Gish gallop" here. "The Gish Gallop (also proof by verbosity) is the fallacious debating tactic of drowning an opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that the opponent cannot possibly rebut each one in real time." [1]"It could have been different. The scriptures might have contained revelations that, while incomprehensible to people at the time of the revelation, may still have been recorded as mysterious, esoteric knowledge. That knowledge then might have become less esoteric as science and the other knowledge arts, such as history, developed higher levels of sophistication....But, we have no risky prediction anywhere in the scriptures that has come true. Of course, preachers have disingenously told their flocks that many Biblical prophecies have been fulfilled.In Evidence That Demands a Verdict...Josh McDowell of the Campus Crusade for Christ...lists sixty-one Old Testament prophecies that he claims precisely foretold the coming of Jesus Christ as the Messiah.Each of the prophecies listed by McDowell is confirmed in no other place except the Bible. We have no independent evidence that events actually took place as described -- especially the ones happening in heaven. Before making the extraordinary claim that something supernatural occurred, simple common sense tells us that we must rule out the ordinary, far more plausible account that the events are fictional, written so as to conform to Biblical prophecies." [2]At the end of the day, the "mathematical probility" of all these "prophecies" being "fulfilled" only seems to impress Christians. Christians want these prophecies to come true. So, their standards for what is a "prophecy" are extremely low, and their standards for "fulfillment" are even lower. Raised Christian or not: when it comes to these prophecies, you're counting the hits and ignoring the misses.[1] RationalWiki, "Gish gallop"[2] Victor Stenger, "God: The Failed Hypothesis"