BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United Kingdom Should Leave the European Union

1. EconomyThe Pro continues to claim that he has refuted the argument, however, his source does not contradict my claim. He says that 3-4 Million jobs would not be lost as many of these jobs would simply be replaced by Trade substitution. However, this study states that these jobs are simply not dependent on EU membership, and it does not contradict the CBI study which states that close to 1 million jobs would be lost as a result. He further cites the fact that the President of the CBI happens to be the chairman of a shipping company, however this does not undermine my argument and in fact, this should only further support my argument, as if the shipping company loses money, it will be forced to lay people off, thus providing a specific example as to where these job losses would be.The pro additionally highlights the fact that JP Morgan is cited in the article, as warning against Brexit, while at the same time encouraging the purchasing of British stocks. This point is simply irrelevant to this debate, as it is very clear from the MarketWatch Article, that JP Morgan is encouraging this for the very simple fact that British stocks are low in the status quo, and JP Morgan believes that Britain will ultimately vote to stay in the EU and this will result in an increase in stock prices.Sourceshttp://news.cbi.org.uk...;2. Workers RightsTo quote the Pro's previous response on this issue, "The Conservatives certainly won"t increase the minimum wage or extend worker's protections." This is the plain and simple fact of the matter. There is no reason that the conservatives would expand workers rights, especially given the fact that David Cameron has attempted to allow the UK to opt out of Workers rights protections. The Conservative Party would not want to reimplement the workers rights protections that they are already attempting to abolish. And it is not sensationalist to claim that because Leave Campaigners are against workers rights they want to get rid of workers protections, it is a logical conclusion.3. Reforming the EUThe problems of the EU stem from the lack of democracy in Brussels that I have discussed in previous rounds. The fact that it currently allows for greater exploitation of poorer nations is a serious problem, however, it will not be solved by retreating into the cocoon of isolationism. It will only be solved by reigniting the flame of democracy in Brussels, and by giving people more say in the management of the European Union.While it is true that right now the EU is a force against democracy, the beast does not necessarily need to be slain, especially when it can still be tamed. However, Britain cannot hope to make any impact on this from outside the EU.On all my other points, I extend my arguments.
The United Kingdom Should Leave the European Union

I am opposed to Brexit for the following reasons1) It would be bad for the British economyIt is estimated that 3.3 million jobs are tied directly or indirectly to trade with the European Union. While not all of these jobs are dependent on EU membership, if the UK were to leave the EU, approximately 1 Million Jobs would be lost according to the CBI. Industries where these jobs losses would be felt the greatest include the automotive industry and the financial services industry, both of which rely on trade with the EU. It is also estimated that 790,000 jobs. Leaving the EU would mean that these job gains would simply not be seen. Sourceshttp://researchbriefings.parliament.uk...;http://www.cebr.com... 2) It would endanger workers protectionsMany Workers rights protections exist at the European level. These protections include limits on weekly hours, paid maternity leave, equal pay for women workers, guaranteed breaks at work, anti-discrimination protections in hiring, health and safety protections and minimum amounts of annual paid holiday. If the UK were to leave the EU these protections would be lost, as they do not exist in British law. Many advocates for Brexit would like to see these workers rights protections abolished and While these protections could hypothetically be added after Brexit, this seems highly unlikely. Prime Minister David Cameron has already attempted to allow the UK to "opt out" or workers rights protections and if the UK were to vote to leave, there is no reason to believe that Cameron's government would implement these protections under British law. Many other advocates for Brexit also advocate for ending these worker protections and view leaving the EU as the most effective way of bringing about their goal.Sourceshttp://www.telegraph.co.uk...https://www.tuc.org.uk...http://www.independent.co.uk...http://www.mirror.co.uk...https://www.tuc.org.uk...http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk...3) In order to change Europe, Britain must stay in EuropeIt cannot be denied that the European Union has a great number of problems, however, leaving the EU is not a solution, and it would in all likelihood cause the EU to completely disintegrate. In order to solve the problems within the EU, Britain must remain in the EU. You cannot solve the problems from the outside. Britain is a powerful player within the EU, and thus would great influence in making the changes needed to solve the EU's problems. Britain can either leave the EU, dragging the rest of the continent down with it, or it can stay in and help fix the cracks in the EU.Sourceshttp://www.irishtimes.com...I shall address the issues of the NHS, TTIP, and Human Rights in the next round.
The United Kingdom Should Leave the European Union

This debate will be over if the United Kingdom should leave the European Union.As the Con, I shall argue that the United Kingdom should remain in the European Union and shall state my arguments in the next round.The Pro will argue that the UK should leave the European Union and shall state their arguments in the next round.The format shall be as followsRound 1: Acceptance, no argumentsRound 2: Opening Arguments, No RebuttalsRound 3: Rebuttals and Further ArgumentsRound 4: Rebuttals (NO NEW ARGUMENTS!)Round 5: Final Rebuttals and Conclusion
Should governments in rich countries relax the laws controlling immigration?[GY]

Ladies and gentlemen, tonight I would like to talk about whether or not governments in rich countries should relax the laws controlling immigration. Before going into my arguments I would like to define key terms of the motion. Firstly, I define ‘rich countries' as developed countries and ‘should relax the law' as ‘morally and practically effective to ease restriction' and lastly immigration as coming of people into a country in order to live and work there. In my opinion, relaxation of laws regarding immigration is beneficial to both rich countries and immigrants. Now I will start my arguments. Most rich countries are prone to reduce the number of immigrants recently. However, there are still people who smuggle themselves to developed countries in order to escape from terrible condition in their home countries. Such illegal immigrants are often exploited by employers who do not follow regulation on pay or condition, which means that they do not pay tax and work in bad condition to earn money. Also, they often become involved in crime. Therefore if we relax the law and let people immigrate legally, there will be less people who commit crime and work under bad condition. In addition, the government will be able to receive tax from the immigrants. Secondly, immigrants can make economy of rich countries bigger by performing unskilled labor that people living in such countries not willing to do. It is researched that in London there are 70% of companies are looking for workers willing to perform basic manual jobs but harsh restriction British government employed obstructed such attempt. However, when the government eases the regulation, the immigrants will be able to do such job and therefore contribute to economic growth of developed countries Lastly, through alleviation of the law controlling immigrants, they can earn money therefore improve not only their quality of life but those of their families and situations of home countries.
Christianity is an illegitimate religion

Refutations as always 1) A) Adam and Eve My opponent says evolution has not been proven, it is a theory but I would like to point out that the multiple specimens they compared like homosapiens were in fact proven by the CPO science group, this source of his is from 1993 and that one man does not have the education that a whole council of scientists have. C) Noah's Ark, now this Boat Shaped structure is just a THEORY. This theory could just be a ship that was washed up there at a time before. And his source is completely bias. It is a site that promotes Christianity, how can that be fair in a debate asking if it is legitmate?!!? D) There have been multiple quotations by different people like Matthew in it, if this is Gods words to the People, why are there words written by other men in the bible. That is my point. E) These many prophecies that occurred once again I question the reliability of his source, a Christ promoting website. How do you know these prophecies were not completed by Jesus, it is impossible to say! And these prophecies could be made by propagandizers of Christianity when the Church became corrupt! As for a baby being born to a virgin... No prophecy can explain that. There are scientific facts against that, you cannot deny this fallacy. I would like to bring up another sub point. F) The Christian Church in the Middle Ages claimed that it was Gods word that the world was Geocentric however the Earth isn't the middle of our solar system! The sun is! Clearly that is a LIE by the Church! How can this be a true religion! Voters I have clearly refuted my opponents refutations and I await is other refutations I ask him that he keep his paragraphs short so he may refute more and he could. Thanks you
Christianity is an illegitimate religion

Voters Before I start I ask that you put aside your religious preferences and vote fairly. Also, I would like it if the stories from the bible are not considered facts. I accept the words and quotes from it but for example you cannot site the source of Noah's Ark for your evidence. Contention 1) Christianity is known to have many fallacies within its bible. A) Adam and Eve- The Christian Church has supported that till the very beginning of its creation. They said god sent down the two as a punishment six thousand years ago. But science has proven otherwise. Darwin proved that man was created much before that and proved it is evolution how humans were formed from apes. B) The pope really is a god like the bible says- If he is truly god as described in the bible, he would be immortal. But if I am not wrong every pope except the current one has died. C) Noah's Ark The bible says there was a great flood that covered much of the land in the world. But if that is the case I would like scientific proof of this water and where it currently is. D) The bible is the "word of god." If this is true why do many people like Pope Peter have their own opinions in the bible itself E) Jesus was born to a "virgin." I do not see how this is even possible! Contention 2) Christianity has had many corrupt times in its past. At one point, indulgences were given out daily to collect money or the church. Now if what the bible says (that the only way to get into heaven is being a good human) how does this work? I do not see how the "true religion" could let this happen to it! Additionally, the current priests of the church are pedophiles. Yes I said it. They were supposedly picked by gods but in countless news reports by CNN, they were raping young boys. Yes, they were Gay Raping Pedophiles. Isn't being gay forbidden by the Catholic bible? That just contradicts what they're dedicated to! Contention 3) The bible cannot be the religion because it wasn't the first religion. Hinduism started thousands of years before Christianity, what about the people during that time period? If they did not have Christianity did they simply burn in hell? That time period remains unaddressed by the Church even today!
Christianity is an illegitimate religion

I am trying to debate whether being Buddhist or Christian. If an opponent can prove to me why Christianity is A) accurate in terms of the bible and B) provide offensive arguments why Christianity is the true religion, I will become a Christian. I define Christianity as the Churches of the Catholic Church for two reasons, if I am to be Christian it would be Roman Catholic and also because I do not want to get in the controversial debate of the split of the Christian churches. illegitimate = Something that is fake or not legitimate. I would like my opponent to give an introduction, not state their arguments and in the second round the debate will get started. The 4th round will be voter issues (weighing and why you won etc.). May the best debater win.
Christianity is an illegitimate religion

A) YES I HAVE PROVIDED EVIDENCE.. The CPO Science Council and text book... www.cpo.com/ I do not have a link to that exact page in the book... CPO is a group of America's best scientist on a council.. I should know my mother is learning from them... B) Yes I dropped this argument. C) Noah's Ark.. I would like to point out http://articles.cnn.com... There are floods in turkey.. That does not mean the ship washed up there is from the story of Noah's Ark.. and my opponent accused my "Theory" of evolution saying it cannot be trusted.. But once again HE USED A THEORY FOR the proof of Noah's Ark.. D) I suppose that is your view point however I have met many Christians who said God wrote the first bible himself. E) Let me explain to you my reasoning readers. My opponent used a CHRISTIAN encyclopedia. Now I looked further into it, their only source is the BIBLE. Therefore using that source is unfair and cannot be included in this debate therefore the "prophecies" he fulfilled are NOT true can be thought to be 100% true. And I would like to point out, many religions in the past have groups of disciples proclaiming things for money.. They cannot be a valid source.. And another point within this argument is the birth of Jesus being o a Virgin.. My opponent once again as a last resort says god has the power to do all. This debate is based on evidence and science.. Not a proclamation therefore this pathetic plea to the voters cannot be accepted... F) UNREFUTED BY MY OPPONENT Voters, I ask you forget my other contentions because my opponent did not have space to write them so please just vote on the parts we have debated to make it fair for both of us. Voters, I have clearly refuted all of my opponents refutations and he has still left one of my points unaccounted for. That is why the Pro should win. Might I remind you religious beliefs be put aside from this debate.
Abortion

I would like to point out, you did not answer my question.Not once did I say I believed a cluster of cells in the womb of a mother was alive. I stated that if the ball of cells were allowed to develop into a ball of flesh and that ball of ball flesh was allowed to develop into a ball of flesh with a backbone and if that ball of flesh was allowed to develop into a ball of flesh with human like features (webbed fingers and toes, sealed shut eyes, arms, legs, a nose and a mouth) and if that is allowed to develop into a fully viable life form, then and only then do I believe that there is a living human being living inside of a mothers womb. To clarify, I believe that when a foetus is viable the foetus is living. When the foetus is a living, then I believe that it is living. But before that point I believe that abortion is perfectly fine.To come back to your ridiculous comment about you killing your brother. Obviously I don't believe that murder is acceptable, however I do believe that it is acceptable to stop a life from being created (the same reason I believe condoms are a good thing, I also believe pregnancy pills are a good thing). I obviously don't think I have to be right and I think that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Abortion

My opponent says that the main point of abortion is because the mother does not want the child, and kills him. This is horrible. Same thing, I hate my brother. Do I kill him? No, that is immoral, and my opponent does not say that the baby/fetus is not alive, so he automatically buys that it is alive, and all things have the right of life [1]. Like this baby, and the mother cannot have the right of kill the living baby. My opponent says it is the mother's choice. Same thing, my choice that I want to kill my brother. Do I kill him?
Abortion

First of all are you a vegetarian? So you don't eat meat or fish. The reason abortions happen is because they parent(s) don't want the child. If the child is born the chances that they will be cared for and looked after properly are slim. This means that the baby is unlikely to grow up and become a doctor or invent a cure to a disease. The child will grow up ignored, unloved and possibly abused. I agree, that in some cases after the child is born the parent realize they wanted the child and they are loved. But in others they aren't wanted even after birth. Surely the mother should decide what she does with her body. Overall it should be her choice
Abortion

Just debate all rounds, even the first one.We are killing the baby in the mother's stomach! How can this be legalised! Humans have rights, and a baby is a human, so babies have rights, therefore they should not be killed! This is a very famous quote to show that they are living!!!Claim: All eukaryotic cells are living Claim: All zygotes are eukaryotic cells Conclusion: All zygotes are living https://en.wikipedia.org...This baby came be an amazing person! He might be world-famous, invent a cure which can save millions of lives, but we are killing that baby, which is bad! Therefore, abortion is wrong!
gay marriage and why transsexual once had the right to marry now doesnt

In this incoherent rambling, I have managed to pick out a few arguments, although I would like my opponent to make them a bit more clear and concise for me. There are only three rounds, so I would like to limit the topics to only three. If my opponent wishes to debate these three, I would be happy. If she wishes to change her topics, I ask that she forfeit and start a new debate with just those topics. Either way, I ask my opponent to provide citations for her sources and where she has found her facts. Without reliable sources, the facts do not hold any ground in the debate. Here is what I was able to decipher from this round: 1. You are for gay marriage. Your support for this is that there were some Buddhist monks who were cool when "transsexuals were coming on to them", there are some (unknown and un-cited) religious groups that accept gay marriage, and because gay couples that have children "turn out fine" and anyone who disagrees needs to "look at the psych journals." What is your argument here? What religious groups? What psych journals? 2. You can "prove past lives and experiance i seen and so have others sciencetist though a fringe study have proven cases in india children knowing things that they shouldnt to an accurate degree." I would like this proof and its source before I can debate that. 3. You are a transsexual and "the argument a male to female is a man again is weak look at the psych journals (again)." because "god knew in the wob and yet medical i am a women then it proves a pro for transsexuals". Again, where is the argument? Here are some questions that you posed: a) "why do you still support politeceans who are antigay and yet cheat hypocritease i beleive" b) "why is is christen to teach god is like a buddhist onk and try to be like god then they turn out to be toned down versions of nazis teaching and acting without love and compassion." If we are on the same page, please clarify and confirm your topics. For clarity purposes, I would also request that my opponent check her spelling and grammar before proceeding with the debate so I can coherently read and correctly respond to the arguments. Since my opponent has chosen Pro for this debate, the burden of proof is on her. Therefore, she must back up her claims with scientific proof on the topics of "gay marriage and why transsexual once had the right to marry now doesnt".
Resolved: The 113th U.S. Congress should prioritize energy development

Thanks to Pro for the debate! As my introduction, I'd like to say that my argument shall be:The 113th Congress (which begins session on January 3) [1] should be prioritizing preventing the so-called "fiscal cliff" over any other domestic policy. Further, I'd like to take the opportunity to say that I take as broadly true all of Pro's listed arguments (except 4).1. The "fiscal cliff" is a short-term problem with long term implications. 2. While energy development can lead to economic sustainability (in principle), it cannot solve the problems of the cliff on its own.3. The cliff has both more limiting effects on the government's ability to pay for any other policy, including energy development, and much worse effects on the economy and country as a whole.4. Hopefully, the fiscal cliff will be resolved quickly, and then the Congress may move on to other priorities, but that does not negate that it is a domestic policy issue, and should be their highest priority until resolved. [1] -- http://en.wikipedia.org...;(Sourced just because I wasn't sure the exact date that the 113th Congress begins, and I figured a reader might want the link!)
Resolved: The 113th U.S. Congress should prioritize energy development

RULES- I would just like to start off with a few key rules. First off the first round should be a brief outline with an intro. You can choose to put definitions in here or in the case. 2nd round is the cases of each side. 3rd round is a rebuttal opportunity with the 4th and final round being a final focus showing why you have won the round. Also all sources must be accessible to both parties to be considered valid although logical thought process without sources must be acknowledge as well and can't be dismissed on the basis of not having a source. All points not addressed stand and issues regarding framework and interpretation of the resolution must be addressed in the 2nd and 3rd round as if we were to enter the 4th round without a debate on this it could lead to arguments that don't conflict. EXACT WORDING- Resolved: The 113th U.S. Congress should prioritize energy development over any other domestic policy. In this day and age the benefits of promoting energy development here in the United States are widely over looked. If the current congress can agree on new energy reforms that promote the growth of alternative fuels and congenital fuels the effects would be exactly what America needs at this moment. With this in mind I offer the following contentions to support my position 1. Promoting energy development can lead to economic sustainability and get us out of our current recession 2. Advocating for alternative energies supports the environment and leaves resources for future generations 3. American made energy protects our interests in foreign policy 4. Reforming energy policy would lead to a more educated populace and keep more jobs in the hands of American workers. Thank you to the future CON debater for accepting my challenge.