BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Boys make better friends than girls.

Okay, early arguer, makes the rebuttals more fair. Here are my thoughts when I looked at this (parentisis are notes to the audience and opponent): Boys make better friends than girls. A. Okay, she got what the debate what the debate was about (no offense. One time, I misunderstood what the debate was and I lost the arguement in a Friday debate class.) I believe that the statement above is true because boys are proven to cause less drama. A. List Away! Girls commonly over think many things. A simple text of "I have to go" can mean many different things in their mind. "They think I'm too clingy", "They hate me", "I did something wrong and upset them" are some of the thoughts that go through their mind. A. I am not a big texter, but when I do, I am not like that. Usually, its previous stress,the special hormones, or bullying that cause the extra questions. Men see the surface of the statement: they just simply have to go. A. That is because men are more calmer. Girls easily get upset by these things and end up causing way too much drama for a friendship to handle. A. Some people can. The boys will just look past this fact and move on. A. In general, you're right. My arguement: A. Girls are more caring than boys. B. Girls mature earlier than boys C. Girls solve problem, boys avoid them.
Resolved: Boys make better friends than girls.

Boys make better friends than girls. I believe that the statement above is true because boys are proven to cause less drama. Girls commonly over think many things. A simple text of "I have to go" can mean many different things in their mind. "They think I'm too clingy", "They hate me", "I did something wrong and upset them" are some of the thoughts that go through their mind. Men see the surface of the statement: they just simply have to go. Girls easily get upset by these things and end up causing way too much drama for a friendship to handle. The boys will just look past this fact and move on.
For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous god EX 34:14

Again, Jealousy as described in the Bible can have multiple meanings. My opponent's comparison to someone who has their girlfriend leave them is just stupid because God CREATED the world and has a right to demand respect, honor, and obedience from the people He created. They didn't try to claim that God didn't exist, so I didn't really address that argument in my response. However, since they raised that point in the middle of a debate (which is doubtful whether someone can technically add another contention in such a way) I will address it, even though it is not part of the topic. There are things which come into existence.Everything which comes into existence is caused to exist by something else.There cannot be an infinite series of past causes.Therefore, there exists a first cause which did not come into existence. In other words, the first cause always existed.(Ganssle 2015)Scientifically, there are only three possibilities for the existence of the universe: either, the universe has always existed, it spontaneously generated with no cause, or there was a Cause (God). The first possibility, that the universe has always existed, is refuted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second possibility doesn't make sense because nothing just pops into existence, there always has to be a Cause. Nothing the size of the universe and with its complexity randomly appears. Therefore, the only reasonable possibility is that the universe had a Cause (God.) For such a smart atheist intellectual (who probably treats what people like David Hogg say as gospel truth) the majority of the opposing argument is just a personal attack. Obviously my opponent has some personal experience being rejected which is understandable considering how totally nasty and hateful he is. Unlike what he claims, I did address the references to God's anger and wrath throughout the Bible - all justified responses to sin. Since God is just, he punishes and is angry about sin - there is nothing wrong with that. I had a dim home of a reasonable conversation even after seeing my opponent's hateful Pro constructive post, but that hope has been dashed. I urge a Con vote based on the weakness of my opponent's argument, which is almost all personal attacks, and that I have cited actual evidence in support of my contentions.
For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous god EX 34:14

My opponent's argument rests solely on the fallacy that every word has only one meaning; he/she presumes that "jealousy" as defined in the Bible refers to malice. In fact, there are multiple definitions of "jealousy" - and the most reasonable definition in this context is that God has a "passionate commitment to something which rightly belongs to one." My opponent has not even contested that God exists. That God is a jealous God simply means that as the Creator and rightful Ruler of the universe, that He demands that those that he created worship and follow Him alone. That is far from unreasonable. Since we owe our existence and salvation to God, then it totally legitimate that we not worship a false god (which is what this verse refers to.) I ask my opponent to answer this one crucial question: Assuming God exists, would it be unreasonable or malicious for Him to demand that humans worship Him and only Him? The rest of my opponent's constructive is just a poorly thought-out polemic against Christianity that even most atheists would be ashamed of. His/her statistics are grossly overblown (nowhere close to one billion people have killed in all wars combined, so it's simply ridiculous to say that Christianity has killed 1 billion.) Certainly, God is repeatedly referred to in the Bible as having anger - but in all cases it is righteous anger. God is slow to anger (Exodus 34:6, Psalm 103:8), and He is a just God - if He did not punish evil, then we would be in a much worse state. Being angry at things that are wrong is not a bad thing. Ultimately, justice against evil is necessary for love because you cannot love what is good if you allow evil to trample on it. Upon a thoughtful analysis, it will quickly collapse, and I look forward to facilitating this collapse in the rounds to come.
For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous god EX 34:14

Yep christians, that's the name of your god as he named himself in your bible as "jealous". Pretty tragic and appalling. After all jealousy is nothing more than anger as disguised fear. And this god of yours also freely admitted that he has baggage issues such as anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, and evil. Those are emotions that are befitting of a supreme deity - right? Well if you think so then you most assuredly believe that this god of yours is pure hate and nothing but. After all this god of yours bastilled man with those emotions so in turn man could learn to hate with at least 1 billion dead all in the supposed "good"name of this christian god on the battlefields alone. "More people have died in the name of god than for any other reason." George Carlin and he's right. Yet strangely, and what christians DON'T GET is that this god of theirs could have started out with peace, love, harmony, kindness, care etc etc etc AND KEPT IT. Nah this supposed god of theirs, in which they cannot even prove exists (snicker snick the munching green waits - Barry King), has never made peace, or cared about it enough to have kept it, as this god of theirs is more concerned about evil, anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, jealousy and clearly pain and suffering especially among children, and most importantly flexing his muscles to absolutely show who is in charge and showing his superior ego god complex in which the bible is all about and nothing else. Rules: Show that this god of the bible utterly believes in kindness, care, harmony, peace, love etc, and in no possible way believes in the contradictory hypocritical anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, jealousy, evil etc. Chapters and verses only please. dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.
Judaism v. Islam:

Well, my opponent can't respond to my arguments so he flakes out of the debate. He also lies here, none of my argument is semantically rhetoric, maybe he's offended because he cannot defend his false religion, or maybe he can't take other people challenging his beliefs. Either way he should get over himself, this is debate.org, not agreement.org, if he doesn't like having to defend his position he should have just gone to a mosque and talked about how great Islam is. Either way if my opponent doesn't want to argue, this debate should go to me, since he forfeited the last two rounds and lied on both of them.
Judaism v. Islam:

I would first like to start by asking that @HarryTruman not to use Google Docs any longer. It is harder for readers/judges/ and myself to read and rebut. Also, the link is invalid, meaning that I not be able to rebut any points made in this round, which is inconvenience for the purposes of this debate. If my opponent could make the previous arguments onto his next round that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks to my opponent and DDO for this debate. I am going now to assert that I am NOT trying to convert anyone with my arguments, as I will only defend against claims made by my opponent that Judaism is more morally sound, accurate, and true. The first round's rules did not indicate that I would have to reverse the arguments in Islam's favor, and since the Google Docs link is invalid, I will use this platform throughout the debate. Since I have no arguments to defend against/rebut, I end this round.
Antidepressants, and the antidepressant industry, do more harm than good

By antidepressants, I mean SSRIs, SNRIs, but it could be extended to mean any drug that a GP would normally prescribe for depression.By the antidepressant industry, I mean all the marketing of antidepressants, and any effect directly related it.The harm and good refers to society in general. I acknowledge that certain individuals may benefit from antidepressants, but that others are harmed and that overall the harm outweighs the good.Burden of proof is shared.I've put a filter on this debate because I've put up three debates in a row that were forfeited. But I'm happy to debate anyone who won't forfeit, so please put a comment on if you'd like to debate this and are filtered out.
Not getting children vaccinated

Ah yes, state health insurance. Yes most states have SOME form of health insurance, however not all citizens are eligible for it. If they were, than we would not have this whole hype about Universal Healthcare Plans among the Democrats! Therefore the reasons that I gave before in 2nd round still stand. Also you stated that all vaccines except for HPV should be made mandatory. This is quite a long list of vaccines, and insurance would not completely cover the entire list without making premiums go through the roof. This would also raise the strain on the state health insurances that you have mentioned, leading to possible raised taxes, cut education funds. If in the event, that a diesease does pop up upon an unvaccinated population, it can be quickly controlled. It is very unlikely that a child with symptoms of measles would be allowed to contact your child at a party. Quarentine of the sick child is likely. Yes, vaccines are meant to prevent dieseases, however vaccines also work in creating "rings of immunity" around outbreaks. This is how small pox was eradicated. By immunizing in regions AROUND out breaks, the disease was contained. A similar infrastructure is already in place in the United States with our current usage of immunizations. Now, there are carriers of dieseases with no visible symptoms. However, a person can be a carrier of diesease even with a mandatory immunization. The government does have the right to protect the citizens of a country, however there are limits to how far the government can go. Our federal government does not have the right to completely disregard one's religious beliefs, like I said before. This is one of our base constitutional rights and would be violated if your plan were to be enacted. However, I also find it disagreeable that the government should have a right to dictate what goes into our bodies without personal choice. I do not completely disagree with your statement about parents needing to be responsible-- in fact quite the opposite. Parents should be given their own reins to how to best protect their children, for children are the Parents responsbility, and not the responsibility of politicians in our government. Finally, I would like to thank you for starting this debate. I found it very informative and interesting. Thanks!
Not getting children vaccinated

Sorry I accidentally posted this below ... As for the cost of vaccinations, In my state anyway, any child in my state is eligable for Mass health if they have no insurance. I am almost caertain that all states have some form of state insurance. What if my child is an infant and I go to bring my other child who is vaccinated to a party .. One child is not vaccinated , that child has a disease from not being vaccinated and chances are so does my infant that hasnt become old enough for a vaccine yet. The parent of the child who is not vaccinated is now responsible for both their own child and my child becoming sick. There is a reason we have vaccines and if a parent abuses a child , then they are held accountable , well in my eyes risking a childs health by not getting them vaccinated is a form of abuse, although it may not be as bad as hitting a child .. it is putting your child at risk to contract a disease that is preventable. The Government should have the right to rid our country of potential disease outbreaks and threats . Since I made the mistake of posting this below let me add more There are also elderly that are not vaccinated because a vaccine may not have come out until after they were older, and they can't get the vaccine at their age... why should these parents be allowed to chance their children infecting others. Someone needs to protect these children, they will have to suffer the risk and worry later on in life because their parents didnt get them proper vaccines ..I would want someone to step in and help me if my mom wasnt making sure that I was properly vaccinated as a child.
Not getting children vaccinated

Not true , there are ways to get around vaccinating your children before attending school. You can state that it goes against what you believe in and you can be excused. Many parents don't have their children vaccinated. There is a sudden rise we are seeing in diseases such as measles. This occurs because children are not all being vaccinated. There are also many immigrants coming to this country with their children not getting vaccinated. It is also not fair to risk your child's health by not getting them vaccinated. Many parents that don't get their children vaccinated were vaccinated themselves. Would you rather the small chance of your child being vaccinated or risk them contracting diseases such as small pox, polio, hepatitis A , measles , mumps , rubella, hepatitis B , meningitis, some ear infections. It is more harmful for your child to contract these diseases than to actually have the vaccine. It is very rare for side effects and for the most part they are small. There is no actual evidence to link the MMR vaccine to autism.
Not getting children vaccinated

Vaccination is a relatively new process. For this reason, there are risks to using any vaccine. However, these vaccines are not limited to the HPV vaccine. Because of the nature of our health system, these risks should be taken into account, and the risks that a parent wants expose their children to should be their own decision. Second of all, all public school systems and most private school systems already require the immunization of children. The fact that most parents send their children to school is clear sign that most children are already being vaccinated for the biggest diseases(such as hepatitis.) The few parents without children attending school would not have much risk of having their child exposed to such a diesease, as the vast majority of the population (attending public or private schools) are immunized. Therefore, it can be seen that an official mandate to REQUIRE all parents to immunize their children is unnessesary because the vast majority of our population, that attend public and private schools have already been vaccinized, and with a majority of the population immune, a spread of diesease is unlikely.
Not getting children vaccinated

I am in awe and opposed to people not getting their children vaccinated. Not getting children vaccinated is why we are suddenly having outbreaks of diseases we haven't seen in years. Since vaccines have been found, we are living longer than we ever lived in the past. There is a reason for them. To not get your children vaccinated is irresponsible. I think it should be mandated that everyone get their children vaccinated. The only vaccination that I believe should still be up to a parent is the new HPV vaccine because it is new, cost money and is not neccessary until your child starts to have sex.
Does She have the Booty

I believe she does have the booty because of three reasons. For the first reason, her booty has a mass much larger than the normal booty proving she does have the booty. Also, if one were to observe her booty in tights or sweat pants you would infer that the booty is most indefinitely there. Last, if you were to observe what others say about her booty you would infer that the booty is quite massive and actually phenomenal.
The U.S should send aid to forced child laborers in third world countries.

As a brief roadmap this is where we are: Pro's position: Sending aid to forced child laborers in third world countries. Con's position: Alternatives to ending child labor. I'll go on to defend my case and then attack Con. Pro defense: First of all third world countries make products and trading with the U. S. We don't know how they achieve the quota until there is a whistler report. Until then we continue to trade without knowing. When we do know we either take action such as these: . http://findarticles.com..., . http://www.thefreelibrary.com.... Or we can send in aid to relieve and strengthen the morale of the abused thus inspiring them to protest against the unfair labor and reform the system. This happened many times during the U. S Gilded Age. Now onto Con's alternatives: 1) Burning down factories will not only work but: a)cause a massive riot b)lead to a massive lawsuit against the U. S. c)cause social unstably. d)pollute the environment with toxic gases. And is not a very reliable way to end child labor. 2)How will we eliminate the governments and economy systems? By force? Wait. .. that will create deaths and chaos within these countries. Support inhumane rebel groups? No that defeats our humanitarian ideals. How about a reform led by the laborers? Yes, because it is humane, justified, nonviolent, and long lasting. Look at most of nonviolent protests they all have long lasting effects. Take for example the U. S civil rights movement, our society has much improved from that. Take a look at the protests in France, the government there gives what it believes is justified and right such as national healthcare. A large majority of violent means to eliminate government produce short reigns. A major example is facist Germany that lasted less than a decade. So by sending aid to children and teenagers laborers whom will be the strongest supporting reformers we strengthen their morale for government reforms favoring the laborers. 3)How will we get rid of overpopulation? And what will that solve? According to Pro's position by sending aid we can bring the population down to sustainable levels with aid such as hygienic items. This results in lowering death rates and a decreasing need for bear more children for a greater chance of continuing generations. And because they do not have as many mouths to feed the children do not have to work for the extra money and thus are not forced to work. 4)This will lead to anarchism and thus the loss of order and ultimately resulting in human extinction. Anarchism can never be achieved because there is some sort of order in the world. So what is the purpose of ending civilization? Thank you and I await your response warllamas. This has been very interested so far.
The U.S should send aid to forced child laborers in third world countries.

I thank Sniperjake1994 for starting this intriguing debate. Let start of then shall we. My opponent has stated that the US ought to help children who are being abused in third world countries of forced child labor. I would agree certainly that child labor is anti humanitarian and must be stopped but my opponent holds a huge hypocrisy in advocating that the people who are wearing the clothes (made by children from china) and indulging themselves in there petty disgusting materialistic society, should help? Why should we use the abuser? The US government who forced 'trade' with many third world countries, such as economic fascism in South America. Saying that the US should be used to help or prevent child labor is like saying that Nazis should have been the one to help the Jews after he exterminated and exploited many of them during WW2. I propose a new set of resolutions in order to stop Child Labor: 1) Burn down the industrial factories which enslave children and adults who are forced to work there for a wage. 2) Eliminate the governments and there economic systems who force there people to harm themselves and other people through work which is destroying the planet. 3) Get rid of overpopulation and get back down to sustainable levels. 4) Get rid of Civilization
We should not ban guns.

I also see your point, but there are other ways to protect yourself the same as there are other ways to commit suicide. There are safer options (tactical knife, taser, pepper spray) Okay, so none of these options really kill people (except maybe the knife), but it's enough for you to get out of the situation and seek help. [A] "A tactical knife is perhaps the best self-defense weapon you can carry. In fact, within 20 feet a knife can be more effective, and more deadly, than a gun." Having a gun, if someone is too afraid to use it (or doesn't know how to), what stops the attacker from taking the gun from them (assuming they never had one in the beginning). There are actually a lot of people who own guns, without knowing how to use them (I know 3 people with this issue). I'm aware people use guns to feel safer and more protected, but isn't it a bit much to carry around? Eg., a woman carrying a gun in her purse. In what situation would anybody be prepared and fast enough to take that gun out of the purse or bag and shoot the attacker (unless they were trained - which takes a long time) The average human doesn't (usually) have the ability to know to do that. I think there are other, more useful and safe ways, to protect yourself. At the same time, it is unreasonable to expect the US to ban/get rid of all guns. Besides, people own guns other than the reason of self-protection, and that reason is hunting. I don't expect all guns to get taken away, I just think there are safer ways to protect yourself and don't see guns as the best solution. And thank you, I also love our thicc fupa daddy [A] https://www.asecurelife.com...
We should not ban guns.

I see your point, and it is sad to have that happen, but your telling me that is the only way, of suicide. There are plenty of other ways . And in fact, people need guns because, it's proved that upwards of 2.5 million people a year, protect themselves, from murderers, rapists, and home intruders. And also, it's almost impossible for the government to take every gun in the us. There is at least hundred's of millions guns, that people own. And if , the us does take every single gun. There will still be people buying illegal. And the everyday person can't protect themselves from the criminals that have them through the illegal ways. And, I also like H3H3.