BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is abortion OK

There is scientific evidence that the preborn baby is alive from conception onwards. The mom can make choices that are not harmful. She cannot choose to have a preborn human killed. Its not always painful and scary to have a baby But even so its more painful and scary to be aborted. It does matter if the father wants the child. This affects him to. If the baby is killed against his will he will suffer extreme emotional trauma. Men have the right not to suffer that trauma. The pain of losing a child may even be worst than the pain of birth. Killing humans is never ok unless they are threatening your life or health. https://www.google.com... http://www.babycenter.com...
Is abortion OK

Abortion is completely fine when you have the abortion the baby practically isn't even alive so who cares also its the mums choice is it not and it is extremely scary and painful to have a bay personally if I got pregnant I would have the baby. It doesn't matter if the dad wants it its the mums choice because she's the one that has to lug this huge belly around for 9 months then she has to go through excruciating pain that can last over 3 hours and the dad wouldn't know how that felt. So case closed abortion is perfectly normal and OK.
Hulk Vs Spiderman (Hulk wins)

CROSS EXAMINATION: Since I've got 5 whole rounds, I'm gonna refrain from jumping the gun (as I had initially intended to do) and clarify on a few things about my opponent's case: Question #1: Concerning Reed Richards, Tony Stark and Bruce Banner, are you saying that they have never been successful in getting savagely provoked Hulk to revert back to Bruce Banner? Question #2: What is the likely hood that this battle is taking place in New York City? Question #3: Do you mean to insist that the there have never been ANY single character who was not a friend to the Hulk but managed to sooth him? Question #4: Your parameters for this match up insisted there be no prep time. Is this to merely be understood as preparation before the fight started? Question #5: In your opinion, how does Iron Man compare to a calm Hulk? And believe it or not, that's all the questions I request to be answered before I proceed. Till the next round. :D
Hulk Vs Spiderman (Hulk wins)

Cross Examination: Question #1: How many times have Spidey and Hulk fought and what were the results? (Give as many as you can) Question #2: How do you compare Spidey and Hulk in terms of base strength? Question #3: How fast do you think Hulk is compared to Spiderman? Question #4: How durable would you say Spidey is compared to Hulk? (Base) Question #5: What are your thoughts on the regenerative powers of both opponents? (Base) Question #6: How intelligent would you say Peter Parker is compared to Reed Richards, Bruce Banner or Tony Stark?
Anarchism will lead to our eventual demise

Sadly, I see that my opponent is refusing to debate me on the topic that I have laid out. My opponent says "there are no real benefits to anarchism. " This is false, there are many anarchists out there that I'm sure know many pros of anarchism, and I had intended for an anarchist to take this and make it an interesting debate and possibly show me the error of my ways. My opponent was more interested in winning this debate than actually having a debate with me. My opponent has just taken this debate because of reading the comments, as shown: . http://www.debate.org... I'm assuming that my opponent is not even an anarchist, or else would be taking this debate more seriously. 1. My opponent has misspelled "successfull. " 2. My opponent has said "Just because teenagers are rebellious, why does this make adults and elderly people and toddlers rebellious and wanting to go to anarchy? Teenagers alone would not be enough cause us to go to anarchy. " Okay, fair enough. But isn't everyone at some point a teenager? The adults and elderly have experienced teenage years, and toddlers will soon. Granted, not every teenager is going to be rebellious, but most are, especially today. So if society's teenagers become more and more rebellious, it would make anarchy more popular. 3. My opponent has no sources; granted, it is because he didn't really make an argument, but my opponent says "we currently don't endorse anarchy. " How would the readers know if this were true or not if there was not a source? I have listed seven, eight if you count the one above. 4. "So, because of the vague wording of the resolution, the vote becomes an easy win for the con debater. " My opponent has clearly taken this debate because of this, but obviously did not read my opening argument. I stated that my premise was that I would debate anarchy was "bad," and Con would argue it is "good. " My opponent has accepted this, but not done it, so contrary to what he might think, will lead me to win. Other than that, I see no reason to continue on with this debate, since my contender is obviously not go to argue this case. I thank Con for the debate nevertheless.
Anarchism will lead to our eventual demise

I would like to start this debate under these definitions: Anarchism: A political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Demise: The end of existence or activity. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... I will be arguing that anarchism is "bad" and will lead to the world's demise. Con will be arguing that it is "good," and will benefit the world.
JC was NOT the messiah

FINAL ROUND."I don't have to proof the prophecies are reliable. "Yes you do. If they aren't reliable then we don't have to trust them to define what messiah is. "...then the concept of "messiah" wouldn't even get started. " Yet the dictionary definition is different from the testaments. It seems apparent some unique thinking was there in the process besides the testaments."... a picture of JC delivering a pizza is not proving anything."It proves that JC was a deliverer, fulfilling the definition.Opponent has failed to prove that messiah is the true definition by the testaments. He has not managed, over and over, failing time after time to ever be able to prove the testaments trustworthy. I on the other hand have given the clear trusted definition on dictionary.com, and shown Jesus to be the deliverer he was. My opponent has failed to prove that messiah=testaments' definition. He has lost this debate, the core of the most important part of JC being a messiah.I win, VOTE ME.
JC was NOT the messiah

Opponent has yet to make the big important connection that the prophecies are trustworthy and that those who fulfill it are definitely messiahs, and those who do not are not messiahs. Why should we trust these prophecies? They are contradictory against the views of modern day, which define "messiah" as simply the "deliverer..." as shown previously, and one definition even says "Jesus Christ" himself. It is modern time now. We cannot simply adopt and believe the prophecies and testaments. The messiah by definition has changed, and I have shown how Jesus is indeed a deliverer who fulfills the definition of "messiah".
JC was NOT the messiah

Okay, of course I was only joking about Julius Caesar. Can't we have fun once in a while? Okay, but back to the serious debate.First of all, my opponent needs to make the jump of logic that if Jesus fulfills the prophecies, then he is the messiah, and that if he didn't fulfill the prophecies then he isn't the messiah. But he has failed to back up why exactly the prophecies decide whether or not you are a messiah. By definition of Messiah from http://dictionary.reference.com..., a messiah's just a deliverer, and one of the definitions are EVEN JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF. Jesus christ did in fact deliver. There is photographic evidence pictured below He loved parties so much he even delivered ice to the occasion He even has made his own motto/company thing... See? He's definitely a deliverer, fulfilling the meaning of messiah.Even if we agree that Jesus didn't fulfill the prophecies, that still doesn't mean he isn't a messiah. Even if goose isn't spelled the same as geese that doesn't mean they don't have pretty much the same meanings. My opponent needs to prove that one who does not fulfill the prophecies isn't a messiah, because otherwise, he's a messiah based on definition. But I will give evidence anyways just in case my opponent somehow makes good grounding for the logic that if Jesus didn't fulfill the prophecy he ain't the messiah.Well first of all he did in fact fulfill 100 prophecies [source: http://www.armageddonbooks.com...]If you are too lazy to read all of that, then let me have a more concise list of the most important prophecies he fulfilled [source: http://loudcry.org...]And if you still aren't convinced there's evidence right there in the bible in which shows how he fulfilled his prophecies Source: The youtube video http://www.youtube.com...My opponent needs to rebut the evidence presented above, at the very least. Back to you, Eliyahu.
JC was NOT the messiah

Bs'd "JC" stands for the Christian messiah. Not for Julius Ceasar, not Johny Carson, en no other than the Christian messiah. As I have shown before, he has not fulfilled the messianic prophecies. That it is not Julius Ceasar could have deduced from the fact that he did not fulfill for instance this prophecy: ""The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them etc." This is what is supposed to happen, as soon as there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse (the father of King David) and a Branch shall grow out of his roots; that is as soon as the messiah comes." That it was the Christian messiah, could have been deduced from the fact that his name is mentioned three times in my second round. The fact still remains that he did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.
JC was NOT the messiah

My opponent has not clarified who exactly JC is. Until we know who he is, we cannot assume that my opponent is correct. Since my opponent hasn't clarified who JC is, I will tell you who JC is. JC is the mighty Julius Ceasar. Julius Ceasar did indeed retain peace over the land, ruling over with a strong thumb Not only so he defeated many many others. Wikipedia notes, "Caesar's victories in the Gallic Wars, completed by 51 BC, extended Rome's territory to the English Channel and the Rhine". This shows how powerful Caesar was and how much territory he took.[see: http://en.wikipedia.org...]Not only so Julius Caesar was definitely a secretive wandering preacher and miracle healer. In this picture, even as a statue, he sought out the light of holy God and tried to give fortune and help out those in need. We can imagine his true power when he wasn't a statue. Nowadays some people still remember Caesar as a secret healer and even made up songs about him Finally, when Caesar comes redemption comes. Why? Well you see after Caesar was stabbed The people had to redeem themselves from such acts. When they were reborn they had to face these guys in their next life.... That's redeption indeed.Keep in mind that, if the prophecy was true, I have managed to prove JC was the messiah. But, on the other hand, what makes the prophecy the source of all truth? Who's to say that eveything in the prophecy is true? My opponent's source even doubts the testaments. My opponent needs to prove that we can believe the messiah definition to be true based solely on the testaments, otherwise a "messiah" can be anything, even Julius Caesar without all his glorious accomplishments. ;P
It is impossible to prove either way how the world was created:god or godless

Sorry I was having technical difficulties with the website and my computer. My argument wasn't that god created the universe it was simply that there is no proof to show either way how it was created. "...we could not be here without God to create the universe." Yes ... ok but whose God would that be? There are countless gods and countless ways in believing how the earth came to be (Think of almost every great civilization ever: Rome, China, Persia, Aztec, etc. they all have different gods). All I am trying to prove is that there is no evidence (really) to show either way. Like my opponent I would like to say something like this: "Yes God invented everything!" ...BUT... there is no true evidence besides thousands of people believing and the Bible. We cant just base things in belief without wondering why they happened or how they happened! Have you ever thought of any other religion, (or lack of it), has some good points... most do. By the way I really hate to debate this side... any atheists, Jews, Muslims, etc. that want to debate this? Just kidding and I really wish you would've left me with more, but sorry for my missing the last round.
Troll debates should be allowed on DDO.

RebuttalA corporation is permitted to curb your freedom of speech. The first amendment to the US constitution only applies to the governments right (or lack of right) to infringe on the freedom of speech of its citizens [1]. But regardless I live in the united kingdom, why should foreign laws effect me? Why should a multi national organisation be forced to subject all of its users to spam and trolls because of on of the countries it operates in? Why should a constitution written 300 years ago by slave owners who fought and killed my ancestors and which governs a foreign country have any bearing on how I live my life?Argument Making debate.org Easier to NavigateIf trolls were allowed to run wild on debate.org we may see debate.org become unnavigable. There are already many many troll debates going on at the moment even with admins working to stop the trolls.This is a Debate SitePeople come here to debate issues allowing troll debates would simply cause problems for those who come to the website for what it was originally intended for. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Troll debates should be allowed on DDO.

A1: Freedom of SpeechP1: The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants citizens freedom of speech.P2: Banning troll debates would be an infringement on (certain) DDO users' right to freedom of speech.C1: Therefore troll debates should be allowed on DDO. Defense of P1:P1 is a known fact. While not everyone is granted freedom of speech where they use DDO, they are people just like us and deserve freedom of speech. DDO is a place where people can excercise freedom of speech and other 1st amendment rights. Defense of P2:Participating in a troll debate is a great example of using one's freedom of speech. If you look at the logic used in a troll debate, it is obviously not the same logic you would use in a serious debate. How is that not using your freedom of speech?
Troll debates should be allowed on DDO.

1st AmendmentDebate.org can be considered a publisher which means it has the final say in what it publishes. You cannot force a publisher to publish what you want it to publish.Those criteria you mention only apply to the government:"there was no implied right of free speech within a private shopping center." [1]"Therefore, respondents were not entitled to exercise their free-speech rights on the privately owned shopping-center property." [2].Human Right to Freedom of SpeechI agree that freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. However I defined freedom of speech as the government not being allowed to restrict the speech of "it's" citizens. I don't think of freedom of speech as forcing a private party to allow any speech on property owned by that private actor. You can argue (or not as it's the last round) for freedom of speech based on the fact that it should be a universal human right but you cannot argue for it legally. You still haven't really provided a rebuttal to my argument that foreign laws causing problems for people of different nationalities.Oh and that "A Constitution for a Free Scotland" was the manifesto of a political party called the SNP [3].Trolls Running WildI never made any assertion that trolling wasn't humorous (which seems to be your argument). We have seen often that a troll will just spam the challenge section and simply cause problems for legitimate users on this site.Conclusion Pro has failed to provide any serious argument for his position other than: They mean well it's all funny. Please vote con.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.constitutionalcommission.org...
Troll debates should be allowed on DDO.

Rebuttal to the rebuttal"A corporation is permitted to curb your freedom of speech. The first amendment to the US constitution only applies to the governments right (or lack of right) to infringe on the freedom of speech of its citizens [1] "According to the same link you used, a restriction on citizens' freedom of speech must meet the following criteria: It must be content neutral It must be narrowly tailored It must serve a significant governmental interest It must leave open ample alternative channels for communication Banning troll debates would not meet criteria #3 as what we debate on this site does not affect government decisions. If someone displays enough inappropriate behavior on DDO (Jifpop and Aerogant, for example), then Airmax can ban them, thus keeping DDO peaceful without any government involvement. It is bad behavior in person that could eventually require government involvement, which would be uncorrelated with irresponsible use of DDO."But regardless I live in the united kingdom, why should foreign laws effect me? Why should a multi national organisation be forced to subject all of its users to spam and trolls because of on of the countries it operates in? Why should a constitution written 300 years ago by slave owners who fought and killed my ancestors and which governs a foreign country have any bearing on how I live my life?"It does not matter who made it, when it was made, or who it is meant for. You are a human like the rest of us. Freedom of speech is a freedom. You have been watching your mouth (or your keyboard, as far as I can tell) very closely, so as far as I am concerned, you should have freedom of speech. Also, According to Article 6 of A Constitution for a Free Scotland, citizens are also allowed freedom of speech [1]. Rebuttal to the argument:"If trolls were allowed to run wild on debate.org we may see debate.org become unnavigable. There are already many many troll debates going on at the moment even with admins working to stop the trolls."Actually, troll debates are intended for humor. There could thus simply be a law that all troll debates had to be in the funny section. If you found a debate of a silly topic outside the funny, section, you would likely find it in "miscellaneous" and see Jonbonbon's profile picture, plus a title such as: "Resolved: Ireland does not exist." If you are not interested in troll debates then you need not participate in one nor look at one. If that does not suffice, a site official could start a thread listing all the troll debates on this site in post #1 and block posting from anyone else to avoid unnavigability. They could update the thread on a regular basis and post links.Conclusion: The humorous intent of troll debates would get them all in the Funny section (unless it was a Jonbonbon style troll debate, but even then it would be easy to tell.) Having them all in one section would keep other sections of this site from getting infected, thus there is no harm in allowing troll debates.[1]- http://en.wikipedia.org...
Evolution is a lie and evolutionistism is evil

Hi kids, it's me again! In the last round I proved beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution is true. But even if Young Earth Creationism and Common Descent were two ideas with equal scientific backing, I'd still argue that Creationism should not be taught in schools, period. If you're one of those stupid Creationists (in which case you shouldn't breed), you're probably wondering why. Well, there's a very simple yet very powerful answer to this question: Separation of Church and State! You see, Creationism and Intelligent Design endorse the idea that a Deity created the world. Creationism favors Christianity above all others, despite the fact that almost every religion believes that a supernatural power created the world. Therefore, in the name of neutrality and Separation of Church and State, that wicked unscientific idea advocated by child molesting Republicans should be banned from our schools! You see, according to the first amendment, the Government cannot favor religion! Rather, the First Amendment says that religion should stay out of everything the Government does. That means that the Government cannot endorse Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Yazidism, Zoroastrianism, Druze religion, Samaritanism, tribal beliefs, animism, shamanism, spirituality, or any religiosity at all! Now, that Creationist in prison (see the previous round) told me "If no religion is endorsed in schools, and religious beliefs are criticized in schools, you have lack of religion, which is atheism. In refusing to endorse any kind of religion while criticizing religion, you are endorsing atheism." That's false false false! It's NEUTRALITY! Lack of and criticism of religion is neutrality and fairness, not atheism! Learn the difference, you retarded Creationist! Let us remember something: atheism is not a religion. Therefore, it deserves to be exempt from all the restrictions placed on religion by the first amendment. Atheism, which is the belief that there is no God, is in a completely different category as religion, which stresses the belief in God. Schools should not be able to teach that God exists. Instead, we should teach that God does not exist and all religion is false. NEUTRALITY IS SO AWESOME! Besides being unconstitutional, teaching Creationism to children is dangerous to the future of our country, which we don't care about anyway because the United States is the ultimate imperialist devil. You see, if students do not realize that humans descended from abiogenesis, rather they believe that a Deity created us, all scientific progress in the fields of computer programming, space exploration, history, mathematics, and electronics will not only halt but it will be lost forever! Why? Because no Creationist can be knowledgeable in math and computer programming, as they believe the evil lie of Creationism. I WIN VOTE FOR EVOLUTION DOWN WITH THE BOURGEOIS CREATIONIST CLERGY CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!