BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Premarital Sex

Sex is not the way you see if your partner is good for you. Trying to find them out in person and talking is the way. Sex is only for pleasure and is a sorry excuse for getting to know your partner. There are porn stories online and porn pictures if little girls. I don't have anything to prove, except for the biblical facts, but the world is twisted nowadays, and back then sex was not for recreation but for reproduction. Thanks for listening and debating with me. PS I'm only 13.
Premarital Sex

Outside of Christianity, there isn't really anything wrong except fear of abortion, fear of pregnancy, and not letting your worried parents know. Unless they are crazy too, and have sex with random people or maybe even you. Easily enough for you, condoms were made. Now, there are online porn stories of young girls getting seduced by grown men into having sex. That's just pure hell. This is what I personally think. If sex is supposed to be true love, and marriage is too, then why not let them go together? Why let some grown 40 year old men take your virginity when you're 11? And biblically, it is very wrong too.
Premarital Sex

Hi, my name is Samuel. I am 13 years old. I think Premarital Sex is wrong. The bible says it (Hebrews 13:4). Sex is for pleasure. And many teens nowadays want that pleasure. But God made sex for married couples. He created the gift for people that were married. It is the way to reproduce, but also a way to have great pleasure. God made that pleasure for married couples only.
should kids through ages 4-8 have have a table or phone

You spelt tablet "table." :). when I was 8 I wanted a phone but didn't get one until I was 12. 4-year-olds should have tablets for educational proposes, they have protective cases and good apps that could be used to learn. when I was 4 I have a tablet. a lot of 8-year-olds have phones for safety reasons. when I was 8 I should have had a phone because I got lost a lot and my mother never picked me up in time. It is especially important for 8-year-olds to have phones because they have a tendency to get lost, and if they need some one to pick them up from school or sports it can be very helpful. If they need help from friends on homework they can text or call them. :)
Muhammad Was a Crackpot, Not a Prophet

so you are argueing that Prophet Muhammed wasnt a prophet and in fact he was mad man responible for much of world's conflicts/disorders and terrorism going out there... dont know what exactly you mean by that but ok just put forward your case and we will deal with it... just a little question are you before starting the debate... are you atheist or theist? and if you have a religion to which religon you ascribe to?
Muhammad Was a Crackpot, Not a Prophet

The proposition of this debate is Muhammad, the alleged prophet of the Islamic faith, was in fact a crackpot that cultivated a pernicious ideology that is responsible for much of the world's conflict and terrorism. I will forego the usual formalities regarding definitions, and so on, asking that my opponent focus exclusively on Muhammad and begin the debate in earnest with their opening. It is my hope that my preference to debate someone who adheres to Islam, but I'm open to debating anyone including shameless hypocrites on the Left who have paradoxically found an extreme form of religious fundamentalism they can endorse.
Atonement of sin(Christianity)

1 Corinthians 15:13-14 was just saying that if Jesus wasn't resurrected, then the whole Christian faith would be pointless. But Paul literally writes in 1 Corinthians 15:20 "But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep." A few verses earlier he wrote "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve." So my opponent has no chance of getting the Bible to somehow invalidate the Resurrection. In response to what my opponent wrote, God knew that if he were to send his son, that he would be murdered. The Jews were not made to do what they did but God used immoral behavior to do something good. Although they sinned by murdering Jesus, God used this event to save humanity. So the Jews are guilty for murdering Jesus and we should thank God for consistently making good out of the bad things we do. In John 20:15, Jesus was not dressed up as a Gardener. He was walking in the garden when he appeared to Mary and she simply mistook him for a gardener (since that is where they work). As for who Jesus was, he was in his resurrected body which Paul also talks above in 1 Corinthians 15. So he is both man and God. People thought that Jesus was some kind of ghost and they couldn't believe that a body actually raised from the dead. So Paul goes on to lay the argument down for the Resurrection of Jesus. Some Christians believe that Jesus didn't have any blood after the resurrection. I think that is weird so I believe that it is more logical that he was just saying that his body isn't the same as it was before his death. His body was now perfect and it wasn't just flesh and bones like it once was. That isn't to say that he didn't still have flesh and bones, but that he is now in a perfect body. As for the Qur'an, the claims made aren't accurate. The evidence for the crucifixion is supplied by the gospel writers who lived during that time period. And those claims are further back up by the non-Biblical sources I mentioned earlier. The Qur'an on the the other hand was written 400 years later. So I choose to go with the gospel accounts (written before 70 AD). Which do you honestly think is more accurate?
Atonement of sin(Christianity)

I have few points to express with you , but first of all ,consider these verses:- 1 Corinthians 15:13-14 KJV "But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: [14] And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain,YOUR FAITH IS ALSO IN VAIN." Are Judah and the Jews who killed Jesus going to hell ,as they contributed to the (so called)killing of Jesus(as you claim)? Shouldn't you thank Judah and the Jews as they crucified Jesus for the atonement of sin? And if you say it was already planned by God or Jesus predicted before that he'll be betrayed and the Jews will kill him, then do you think the God of the bible is just that he planned that Judah would be a betrayer and he also planned that the Jews will kill Jesus? Then aren't Judah and the Jews innocent if it was part of a plan of God? So ,are Judah and the Jews who contributed to the death of Jesus guilty for what they've done? Also if Jesus really was crucified and resurrected ,then why was he in disguise as a Gardener?(John 20:15), in fact he was in dusguise as a Gardner in order the Jews wouldn't see him( imagine someone is dead and still afraid to be killed again, or why would a spirit wear as a gardener?). And you christians claim Jesus is God in flesh ,then when he died ,and when he appeared to Mary(as in John 20:15) ,and to his disciples ,what form was he in ,was he still in a form of Jesus (flesh), or as God himself? In fact he Jesus himself said that the spirit has no bones nor flesh ,yet he had both of them after his crucifixion(as you claim) as seen in Luke 24:39. I'd like to conclude with:- "And because of their saying: We killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they killed him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! And those who differ theirin are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; for surely ,they killed him not." Qur'an 4:157 "Say: "O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah." If then they turn back, say ye: "Bear witness that we are Muslims (bowing to Allah's Will)." Qur'an 3:64
l'energie nucleaire est une approche raisonnable pour produire de l'electricity

le premier tour est de définir le sujet, aucun argument n'est autorisé jusqu'à la deuxième ronde. L'énergie nucléaire doit être interprétée comme la puissance qui est faite en utilisant l'énergie de la fission nucléaire. Pas d'autres définitions sont nécessaires si l'on suit les règles suivantes: 1) pas de sémantique ou de mauvaise conduite. 2) la remise des résultats dans 7 la perte de points. Bonne chance à mon adversaire.
Are Renewable Energy Sources Better than Fossil Fuels

We will never run out of renewable resources, as they're always present, at least most of the time. I do concede that wind and solar energy aren't around 90% of the time. However, these aren't the only renewable resources. We have more reliable resources, such as water and geothermal energy."- PowerPikachu21 I highly doubt there are as reliable, considering the world's energy consumption only consisted of 1/3rd renewable energy [1], . "By using hydroelectric dams, we can use the machanical energy of water to obtain power. The resovoirs made by these dams helps the environment by creating habitats for animals and plants."- PowerPikachu21 "Geothermal energy is heat energy from the Earth. This can be turned into electricity. The heat pumps associated with Geothermal energy is used to cool houses."- PowerPikachu21 Geothermal energy has alot of problems with it. It only works for areas with specific conditions and isn't developed enough to help power the world [1]. "We can also burn wood into charcoal, which is a renewable version of mined coal. We can rely on renewable resources to be around much longer than coal and oil, making them viable for the far future."- Powerpikachu21 Biomass is also very expensive to convert and transport, and is also very inefficient when compared to fossil fuels [2] We can rely on them to be around, yes. But we can't rely on them for energy. The processes to convert renewable resources into energy cost alot of money, and they can only do a third of the job of coal. Sources [1]- http://www.tsp-data-portal.org... [2]- http://www.conserve-energy-future.com... [3]- http://www.conserve-energy-future.com...
Are Renewable Energy Sources Better than Fossil Fuels

Sorry for the delay. I often do that.Argument:We will never run out of renewable resources, as they're always present, at least most of the time. I do concede that wind and solar energy aren't around 90% of the time. However, these aren't the only renewable resources. We have more reliable resources, such as water and geothermal energy. Hydroelectric Energy:By using hydroelectric dams, we can use the machanical energy of water to obtain power. The resovoirs made by these dams helps the environment by creating habitats for animals and plants. http://nationalgeographic.org...Geothermal Energy:Geothermal energy is heat energy from the Earth. This can be turned into electricity. The heat pumps associated with Geothermal energy is used to cool houses. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com...We can also burn wood into charcoal, which is a renewable version of mined coal. We can rely on renewable resources to be around much longer than coal and oil, making them viable for the far future.
Are Renewable Energy Sources Better than Fossil Fuels

With the non-stop hype about blaming CO2 for the warming of the Earth, Renewable resources such as solar and wind have risen as potential substitutes for fossil fuels. However, the renewable energy sources are unreliable and much more expensive. "While raw forms of energy are both free and practically infinite, the equipment and materials needed to collect, process, and transport the energy to the users are neither one. Currently, the RE costs are generally higher than that of fossil-based and nuclear energy. In addition to this, unlike well-established conventional designs, the advancement in different RE technologies still requires substantial investments. " [1]. It is also fair to point out something important to this debate: the most common sources of renewable energy are solar and wind. The problem with this is that the Sun won't always be out, and the wind doesn't always blow. This means that you won't always be able to get energy if you rely on solar and wind, as there is no areas that wind and solar energy are stored to be distributed; they must be used right away. So during winter, when the sun isn't always out, it would be much harder to get energy. You would have to place more solar panels to get enough energy to power a country through winter months, which would be very costly. And in order for wind turbines to be useful, the wind would have to constantly be blowing, which is hard to do, since wind speeds are unpredictable. Germany, who's currently leading the world in use of natural resources, spends lots of money because they still need to rely on fossil fuels when natural resources don't come through, which is why their energy poverty rates (people who can't pay electric bills due to a price increase) have rose. [2] "Wind power is unpredictable and unreliable as it often produces either too much or too little power. This damages a power grid that can"t function unless demand for electricity exactly matches supply. With conventional power plants, like nuclear or natural gas, having demand match supply isn"t difficult because they can easily adjust output far in advance of predicted demand for electricity. Solar and wind power, however, cannot easily adjust output because especially cloudy or windless day can"t be predicted in advanced." [3] Fossil fuels came a long way, and thanks to fossil fuels, we have much better air [4] and water quality [5] . In fact we are on the road to obtaining energy from fossil fuels that don't emit as much pollutants. [6]. Fossil fuels currently supply 2/3 (67%) of America's energy [7], roughly the same for the world [8]. Its job is too big to be taken by something as inefficient as renewable resources now. Sources [1]- http://www.renewable-energysources.com... [2]- http://www.forbes.com... [3]-http://dailycaller.com... [4]-https://www.epa.gov... [5]-http://www.forbes.com... [6]-http://phys.org... [7]-https://www.eia.gov... [8]-http://www.tsp-data-portal.org...
Are Renewable Energy Sources Better than Fossil Fuels

Here is the debate structure: R1 Acceptance & definitions R2 Arguments R3 Rebuttals R4 Defense I will be arguing that fossil fuels are a better energy source than Renewable Energy Sources. My opponent will argue that Renewable Energy Sources are a better energy source than Fossil Fuels. Round One- Agree upon definitions if any, and accept debate rules Round Two- Present arguments without rebuking what the opposing debater argued. So if I presented my argument first, you cannot rebuke the points that I made in your. Round Three- NOW you can finally rebuke opposing arguments made by your opponents in Round Two. Round Four- Defend your round 2 arguments WITHOUT introducing any new arguments. Definitions Renewable Energy: any naturally occurring, theoretically inexhaustible source of energy, as biomass, solar, wind, tidal, wave, and hydroelectric power, that is not derived from fossil or nuclear fuel. Source http://www.dictionary.com...
Atheist beliefs are incongruous with the tenets of science.

I pointed out three broad tenets where atheist beliefs are contradictory to scientific thought. My opponent, employing a straw man tactic, tried to narrow and divert the argument simply to evolution. My opponent did not attempt to address the points brought up in Round 1. But to address the evolution claim, there are different creation stories: 1) We were created by God. 2) Evolution. 3) Another as yet unknown reason such as aliens. An atheist could believe 2) or 3). You can find atheists that reject evolution. Thank you.
Atheist beliefs are incongruous with the tenets of science.

My opponent starts Round 1 with a straw man logical fallacy. My opponent offers a close but not truly accurate version of the argument, twisting the idea by exaggerating its scope. Besides, there is no one ideology to which all atheists adhere. I have listed three specific tenets of science where atheists are in contradiction. The debate is regarding those three tenets. 1) The empirical nature of the physical world. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) lists several universal constants such as Newtonian constant of gravitation, Planck's constant, and the speed of light. http://physics.nist.gov... The fundamental forces of physics are measurable. http://www.nobelprize.org... Empirical tools like math and physics would only be used if those tools are appropriate to the physical world they are describing. Mathematical formulas express the laws of nature. Atheist believe the universe came into existance by random chance. Science would need a different set of tools to explain chance occurrences, thereby contradicting the atheist belief. 2) Inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is bottom up approach. Based upon observed instances, we form a judgment about the unobserved. Darwin used inductive reasoning to come up with the theory of evolution. http://www.nsf.gov... Inductive reasoning is used in science. http://en.wikipedia.org... Through inductive reasoning, many scientists offer a proof of God. http://www.simpletoremember.com... However, atheists only accept deductive, "show me" reasoning, contradicting another tenet of science. 3) Not seeking an absolute truth. The scientific method questions our basic beliefs and assumptions about the way the world is. Science works because no fact or belief is ever taken as being final. "Science does not purvey absolute truth, science is a mechanism. It"s a way of trying to improve your knowledge of nature, it"s a system for testing your thoughts against the universe and seeing whether they match." ~ Isaac Asimov http://www.brainpickings.org... Atheism's explicit denial of the existence of God is an absolute truth. However, the existence of God is unknowable. The atheist belief is in contradiction to science. I have demonstrated that atheist believes are incongruous with three basic tenets of science.
Atheist beliefs are incongruous with the tenets of science.

http://www.merriam-webster.com... I am not an atheist, but I know all I have to do is find one belief that doesn't contradict with science and I win the debate. Pro has the burden to prove that every belief that an atheist has is incongruous with the tenets of science. tenets- a belief incongruous- notin line with (personal definition) Atheist- a person who does not believe in God (personal definition) science- a subject that is taken in school that teaches children about the matters of the world we live in (personal definition)
Wanting Someone to Not Commit Suicide Is Equally As Selfish As Wanting to Commit Suicide

Allow me to make clear what the claim is: If some were to want to commit suicide and someone else wanted them to not commit suicide, then they are both equally selfish. The reason why both parties are equally selfish is that they are putting their desires ahead of those of the other party. Say the suicidal victim wants to die because his life is just awful (we'll call him Steve); Steve's wife and two children just died in a plane crash. Along come his friends to talk him out of it. Despite knowing that Steve is suffering and will most likely consider to suffer over the loss of his family for the rest of his life, his friends want him to continue to live. Steve is also aware that his friends wish for him to continue to live. Here we see plainly that both parties are equally selfish because of their intents to decide the ultimate fate of a human being's life. Con argues that opting not to commit suicide, the person's life has the potential to improve. This is true. However, the inverse is also a possibility. Things could become worse for the person in question. For the onlooker to advise the suicidal person to take the risk and continue to live is as selfish as the suicidal person to not take the risk. This is because of the opposing nature of taking a risk versus not taking a risk. The risk of continuing to live only offers the possibility of improvement whereas suicide guarantees escape from the worries and burdens of being alive. This is comparable to the absolute value of five being equal to the absolute value of negative five; both options are perfectly opposing concepts and are thus both parties are equally selfish. In order for con's religious perspective to be of any relevance to this debate, both the suicidal person and the onlooker would have to be aware of the possibility of going to hell for committing suicide. If this is the case then my argument from the previous paragraph would be sufficient for proving my claim as well. In this scenario, the suicidal party is the one taking the risk of going to hell for committing suicide and the onlooker is the one advising for a guarantee (the guarantee here being that the suicidal person will not go to hell for committing suicide should he not commit suicide). For con's sake, I will also make the argument based on the hypothetical circumstances that hell is real and everyone is aware of its existence. In this scenario, the intents of both parties are perfectly opposing as well. If both parties are aware of this, then the suicidal person would show intent to go to hell and the onlooker would show intent for the suicidal person not to go to hell. These two desires are perfectly opposite and thus correlate to an equal amount of selfishness as they are both putting their desires ahead of the desires of the opposite party. Con has failed to demonstrate that the desire of wanting to commit suicide is not equal to the desire of wanting someone else to not commit suicide. I have shown through multiple examples that they are, in fact, equally selfish.
Wanting Someone to Not Commit Suicide Is Equally As Selfish As Wanting to Commit Suicide

Well first of all your assertion is a little vague, you don't go into much detail explaining what you mean. (i'm new to this site, so this just might be the way its done). Anyway without getting sidetracked. Isn't not wanting someone to commit suicide, the opposite of what you would normally regard as selfish. In the sense that yo have the genuine care of another's life to such an extent that you do not want to see them take away something as sacred and as valuable as a life let alone their own. You understand that we are given one life and as such you want to see that person value the sanctity of human life. All things constant, we can assume with reasonable certainty that you believe that by not committing suicide the person is essentially giving his life or existence a second chance. and based on experience after dark days comes the sun. In life there are ups and downs, you (the hypothetical person who wants to stop the suicide) being as wise, knowledgeable and experienced as you are, understand that the problems he/she is going through might at that point appear to be huge and unbearable, but emotions tend to heighten such feelings, you understand seeing things objectively, that generally speaking there are solutions far less drastic than suicide in most if not all circumstances. Lets also take a religious perspective. maybe you believe that killing is a sin, therefore he who kills himself goes to hell, by preventing a person from committing suicide you are essentially (according to your genuine beliefs) saving them from an eternity of damnation in hell. therefore regardless of whether or not your beliefs are true or false, you have a genuine sincerity motivating your actions and are not acting selfish