BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There should not be a death penalty

A common argument for people who oppose the death penalty is that the drugs needed to perform it are expensive. Well, a bullet would fix that problem. Mass murderers do not deserve therapy. Taking them out is less than they deserve. You also didn't show that there was a correlation to the death penalty being legal and people being more or less safe. Your numbers are bare assertions, since you have provided no sources. The end of your first argument is nonsensical. Pro seriously needs to improve his writing, because he is coming off as an immature twelve year old. Also, before Pro says anything about the appeal process, I propose we only give the death penalty when there is extensive evidence they committed the crime (witness accounts, sound recordings, AND video of the offender committing the act), or when the criminal admits to the crime.
There should not be a death penalty

By killing someone, the person who is the killer is a monster. By punishing that monster by death makes the judge, government, police and citizens who were for the death penalty monsters. Instead of killing the criminals, they should be given therapy and taught that what they did was wrong. No punishment? We'll once they know that what they did was wrong, they would have to carry the guilt of killing that person for the rest of their lives. Some facts: In the USA (a country for the death penalty) 700 out of 100000 people are criminals. In Denmark (a country that gives criminals therapy) 4 out of 100000 are criminals. Sources from another debate that had links to sources they looked official like BBC. Option 1 (death penalty) = evil. Option 2 (therapy) = justice.
Civil disobedience in the modern United States is morally justified.

Resolve: On balance, Civil disobedience in the modern United States is morally justified. Definition of terms: 1. Civil: "of or relating to the people who live in a country"(1) 2. Disobedience: "refusal or failure to obey rules, laws, etc. : a lack of obedience" (2) 3. Civil disobedience: "Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, or commands of a government"(3) 3. Morally: "concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior"(4) 4. Justified: "to provide or be a good reason for (something) : to prove or show (something) to be just, right, or reasonable"(5) 5 rounds 1: Con: Definition of terms Pro: Opening argument 2-3: Rebuttals and arguments 4: Con Rebuttals and argument Pro: Final rebuttals and closing statement (no new argument) 5: Con Final rebuttals and closing statement (no new arguments) Pro: waives 10,000 character limit 72 Hr. rounds Min elo of 2,000 to vote Select winner voting style This debate should be impossible to accept, comment if you are interested. (1) http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) http://www.merriam-webster.com... (3)http://en.wikipedia.org... (4) http://www.merriam-webster.com... (5) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Separation of Church and State

"To pass a law saying that it breaches the 1st Amendment is completely wrong." Heh, I see you barely read my argument on individuality. The Constitution applies to the individual. Not a group. Every person shall have the free practice of religion. Your practice of religion does not include displaying the Ten Commandments. It does not say in the Bible "Thou shalt display the Ten Commandments everywhere". It does not say ANYTHING about Christmas. Those holidays and the Ten Commandments and your megalomaniac God can be practiced exactly where they are supposed to be, in a Church. THAT is what the Constitution permits you. If every person has the right to freedom of religion then every person has the right to be free from religion. Separation of Church and State is meant to be there. It is an accepted law. It does not contradict your freedom of religion because the Church is far from the Constitution. I wouldn't be the first one to say "You might not see it but it is there." Separation of Church and State might not be part of the Constitution, but it is there, just like a pathetic argument for God. "By displaying the Ten Commandments in public or governmental places they are exercising their right which is also stated in the first amendment" But Congress is not a person. They are a group of people set out by the Government. The Constitution applies to each of them individually, not them as a group. There is a major difference between a person and people. As Congress, they may not respect a right of establishment of religion, but as each of there own selves, they may do as they please religious wise. To sum myself up: 1. Separation of church and State does exist 2. It does not defeat the purpose of the 1st Amendment, it upholds it. 3. The Constitution applies to the individual self, therefore so does the first amendment. 4. Therefore, it is not constitutional for Congress or forms of government or leadership to display God-loving symbols. 5. Ergo, Separation not only exists, but has a purpose for its existence.
Separation of Church and State

Ok, I don't think that you understand what I'm arguing. My argument is that there is no such thing as "separation of church and state." You agree with me that there is no mention of this in the U.S. constitution. I'm simply saying that you cannot pass laws that prohibit Christian symbols in public places. To pass a law saying that it breaches the 1st Amendment is completely wrong. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This means that they cannot make a law that supports a national or state religion. One of the primaries reasons why people came to America was so that they could exercise their own religion. It is, as you state, "perfectly legal" to display the Ten Commandments in a public place. This is backed up by "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." By displaying the Ten Commandments in public or governmental places they are exercising their right which is also stated in the first amendment "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The towns that have removed the Ten Commandments or that prohibit Christian symbols are doing this unconstitutionally. Take Chief Justice William Rehnquist. This is his account on the myth of "separation of church and state": "On the basis of the record of these proceedings (1789 First Amendment deliberations) in the House of Representatives, James Madison was undoubtedly the most important architect among the Members of the House of the Amendments which became the Bill of Rights.... His original language, "nor shall any national religion be established," obviously does not conform to the "wall of separation" between church and State idea which latter-day commentators have ascribed to him. His explanation on the floor of the meaning of his language--"that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law" is of the same ilk.... It seems indisputable from these glimpses of Madison's thinking, as reflected by actions on the floor of the House in 1789, that he saw the Amendment as designed to prohibit the establishment of a national religion, and perhaps to prevent discrimination among sects. He did not see it as requiring neutrality on the part of government between religion and irreligion." From my perspective, it seems that you have a problem with Christians/Christianity. You state a few of the mistakes that Christians have made over the past 200+ years. Christians have failed on many things and will continue to. This is just a fact of life we all make mistakes.
Separation of Church and State

"Explain how "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" translates to "you cannot say Merry Christmas" or "it is against the law to display the Ten Commandments"." Oh, you can say Merry Christmas to those that believe in Christmas, and you can display the Ten Commandments in your Christian home or Church, but not in a government building. Christmas, although stolen from a pagan holiday, is mainly now a Christian holiday that is built around the Birth of Jesus, whom does not exist. This is from a religious standard, which the Government, who if accepts this standard, is accepting a religion, and promoting one above many other while also offending others. To display the Ten Commandments in a public place may hurt another non-Christian's self image. By Congress saying, "This is perfectly legal to both accounts," they are establishing a religion, which they are forbidden to do. "Now explain to me how we were not founded on Judeo-Christian roots." Our founding fathers were free-thinkers, but the people that followed them were crazy, power-hungry Christians: -Slavery -Racism towards everyone who wasn't white (including women and children) -We killed without authority by the government -We were anti-feminists -We counted black people as only 3/5 human Christianity has a better attitude than this. Yes, there are many things wrong with Christianity, but one of the things does not include racism or anti-feminism or even slavery. Yes, Congress could've approved Bibles, but they did not force them onto anyone. And yes, they appointed chaplains to convert Indians, but they themselves did not convert Indians. We were not Judeo-Christian based. The Bible is a book of ancients meant for a time before logic, knowledge, and wisdom. Most of the founding fathers were Freemason to say in the least.
Separation of Church and State

Who said that you cannot say things such as "Merry Christmas" and that the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed? A judge that does not understand, or refuses to understand what the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment really means (Judge Myron Thompson for example). Explain how "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" translates to "you cannot say Merry Christmas" or "it is against the law to display the Ten Commandments". If you display the 10 Commandments, you do so not because their is a law that supports your decision, you do it because you have the constitutional right to do so. You say that we didn't have Judeo-Christian roots. You're very wrong. You don't have to believe in God or even agree with Christians for that matter, but to say that "We didn't have Judeo-Christian roots. The writers of our government and the Constitution were smart enough and very free-thinking to exclude religion from government" is showing that you are unable to accept history as it is. Here are just a few facts about our nations Judeo-Christian roots: -In 1777, with the Revolutionary War threatening the flow of Bibles from England, (here's the good part) Congress approved the purchase of 20,000 Bibles from Holland to give to the states. -No fewer than 6 of the 13 original states had official, state-supported churches-"establishments of religion"! In fact, these states - Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and South Carolina - refused to ratify the new national Constitution unless it included a prohibition of federal meddling with their existing state "establishments of religion." -Other states required those seeking elected office to be Christians. -The Continental Congress routinely designated days of fasting and prayer and other religious observances, appointed government-funded chaplains, and appropriated money to pay for Christian missionaries to convert the Indians. Now explain to me how we were not founded on Judeo-Christian roots.
Separation of Church and State

I will be your opponent. Seperation of Church and State is not mentioned in the Consitution. But that does not mean it cannot be a law. It is illegal in Ohio to smoke in a public place (restaurants, pool halls, etc.). But it does not say that in the Consitution. The Consitution, however, does say "Freedom of Religion". This applies in two distinct ways. First, the Constitution applies mostly to the individual citizen of the United States of America. When they say Freedom of Religion they mean that each citizen has the right to practice his or her own religion. Secondly, it means "Freedom of religion" as in "Freedom from religion". You do not have to be forced to follow any religious rules or rights that conflict with your own religion or beliefs. In other words, no prayer could be said in Public Schools for it might take offense to an Islamic child or an Atheist. Also, no things such as "Merry Christmas" can be said, and no "Ten Commandments" can be displayed. These will infringe on the rights of many Americans and citizens who want to be free of Christian dogma. "ridding our nation of it's Judeo-Christian roots" We didn't have Judeo-Christian roots. The writers of our government and the Constitution were smart enough and very free-thinking to exclude religion from government. I think it was also John Locke who had the idea that the government cannot control things such as religion, because they focus on the people, not the individual thought.
God is the way to Heaven

Hello, Ok so, if i say that Christianity is the best religion because i said so, then what do have to live for. God is the one that said " I am the way the truth the life no one comes to the father except through me". Now i will also say that He died upon a cross so that we can spend eternity in heaven with Him. My oppenent says it is affending to others. so if God isn't the only way to Heaven than it would be impossibel. Good works being kind i'v heard them all. We are all sinners it is impossible to go to Heaven without having to pay the price. but God took that price for us by dying on the cross and rising again. he took our sins so we don't have to pay the price. If we believe in multiple "gods" what do we have to show for them. The God says don't have false idols agaist me. other gods are false idols ok lets just say that there are multiple ways to Heaven. What are your ways to Heaven and what are your proofs. I have the biggest proof. the Bible. But it also takes faith to believe in something that is not there. We can't see air but we know that it is there. we can't see oxygen but we know that its there. So just because we can't see a true God doesn't mean He is not there.
God is the way to Heaven

hello, you say that god is the only way to heaven that can not be agreed to because in a lot of religions people believe do believe in god but they don't believe thats the only way to heaven.. me for example i am a true Muslim and i do believe in god but my god is different then your god.there are many religions in this world and to their belief their god is different. the way to heaven is not only god.i also believe in god but i will NOT say that it so the BEST religion because to some people that can be offending.and as a suggestion please keep your comments to yourself because it can be offending to some especially about religion." If Jesus is the only way to heaven, all those suckers born before his .... God is good. God is merciful, God asks us not to judge, but love. .." this is a quote from obama.anyone can live and say that "i believe in god ,i will go to heaven.there are many other things you have to believe and do to go to heaven. and we are not to decide who will got to heave or hell that is gods and ONLY gods decision.
God is the way to Heaven

God is the only way to Heaven. Resolved: God is the only way to Heaven and only those who accept Him will go to heaven. God said that He is the way the truth and life and that no one comes to the father accept through Him. Heaven is real and so is hell which one we go to is another story. I belive in God and that why I stand resolved on that Christianity is the best religion and that God is the only way to Heaven
Asians Are Nerdy

My opponent has stated the example of the Asians but in the resolution it has stated that Asians are "nerdy" and he has given a definition but the definition never says that the Asians say bad words and cry when they get an A-. Besides, Asians would surely study if they do not get something so why would this be any problem? My opponent has stated that Asians generally dominate at anything they set out to do but I am pretty sure that there is one thing in the world they CANNOT do.
Asians Are Nerdy

And since he did not yet rebut my points (or really post his own) then I can't strength my points. Now I don't know where my opponent got his definition, but a nerd is an intelligent but single-minded person obsessed with a nonsocial hobby or pursuit. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) My opponent is partly correct with this definnition but he left an important word, intelligent, which means smart. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) Now my opponent claims that a lot of races are nerdy and even America was lots of them. Now first of all this doesn't relate to the resolution which talks about Asians and not Americans. Him saying that does not prove anything about if an Asian is nerdy or not. He is supposed to prove that Asian aren't nerdy. I thank my opponent again and please vote for PRO, because I presented my points while he didn't do anything about, and didn't post any points of his own. I have proven him wrong, and I await to see how he respond.
Asians Are Nerdy

And here is what I have to say. My opponent stated in the resolution that most Asians are nerdy and nerdy means minded or accomplished in scientific or technical pursuits but most Asians are actually doing well yet they are not nerdy and that Asians are not the only people who are nerdy, technically lots of races are nerdy even America has a lot of them. So this basically means that most Asians are smart but may not be NERDY.
Asians Are Nerdy

"Asians are usually smart and have the following aspects although not limited to: 1. straight A's 2. strict parents 3. good at Math and Science 4. superb SAT and ACT scores 5. Ivy League college oriented 6. some can break dance and rap 7. good at video games 8. generally dominates at anything they set out to do also, asians are considered nerds, but more of a cool-nerd type. asian 1: hey, i got 2320 on my SAT! asian 2: i got 2350! asian 1: damn! asian 3: f**k! i got an A- in english. s**t, my parents are gonna kill me. " (this is an example, please ignore the bad language) If these were not the typical stereotypes they would not have been thumbed up by 1800 Urban Dictionary users. That is just one definition on the page, many others share the same stereotypes. My opponent said herself that she is a "typical azn" with stereotypical parents. Asians make up approximately 4% of the US population but have a 20% representation in Ivy League schools. [3] This attributed to the actions of an Asian child's parents. "In their book, the sisters share the methods they say many Asian parents use to get their children to achieve in school. " This strengthens my argument because my opponent said she has parents who "fall under the typical azn stereotypes". Statistics are not racist, they are just statistics. The statistics I have presented here show that proportionally Asians are nerdier than the general US population. I look forward to round 3 and wish my Asian opponent luck. She will probably beat me because she is Asian. [1] - . http://www.debate.org...... [2] - . http://www.urbandictionary.com...... [3] - . http://abcnews.go.com...... I now will look foward to his reponse and hopefully he will post arguments back against my points and also present his. I wish to rebut his points if he will post any. I will thank him again if he accepts. Thank you :)
The average male bengal tiger can defeat the average male african lion.

I accept this challenge. As con I will have to argue why, a lion can defeat a tiger. However I ask Wolfman19 to clarify the situation and the size and weight of each animal. By situation I mean is it a territorial issue or a food issue, and if it's a territorial issue who's trespassing on whom, because the trespassed will have the home advantage, and is it a fight to the death, like one is killing the others baby or until they flee. Please clarify those questions.
Cheese

Cheese is a food derived from milk that is produced in a wide range of flavors, textures, and forms by coagulation of the milk protein casein. It comprises proteins and fat from milk, usually the milk of cows, buffalo, goats, or sheep. During production, the milk is usually acidified, and adding the enzyme rennet causes coagulation. The solids are separated and pressed into final form.[1] Some cheeses have molds on the rind or throughout. Most cheeses melt at cooking temperature.
The Abrahamic God can not be proven nonexistent

No. I am saying that the Abrahamic God, as portrayed, is false due to my argument. I would like to emphasize the words "as portrayed." According to your original argument you specifically said those words. There is a way to prove the existence of the portrayal false, as I have stated in my above argument. I was only agreeing with the fact that a god cannot be proven, just like the flying spaghetti monster or the invisible pink unicorn in your backyard cannot be proven. There is no evidence for or against it, so it cannot be proven or disproven. Portrayals however, are a different story. They can be disproven if there are flaws in the portrayal.
The Abrahamic God can not be proven nonexistent

Very well then. That's a fair argument. But something that bothers me still is Psalm 18:30, which states: "As for God, his way is perfect: The LORD's word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him." The Bible states that God's word and way is without a flaw. Let me then direct you to two other verses. The first is Exodus 20:13, which states "Thou shalt not kill". This is one of the ten commandments of Christianity, so it is very important. The next is Exodus 12:29, which states "And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle." In this scripture, God is shown killing every firstborn, even ones that had nothing to do with the whole ordeal. What blatant hypocrisy. God tells people not to kill, yet he kills, and many of the people he kills here are innocents. This isn't even a special case. There are countless other examples of God killing. This contradiction of hypocrisy brings up another contradiction, this time with the first verse I mentioned. Since the Abrahamic God is a hypocrite, his way cannot be perfect, and his word cannot be flawless. The Bible is meant to be the word of God. So if it is the word of God, he is lying about himself being perfect. If the Bible isn't the word of God, the writers are lying about God, either by making him up, giving him false qualities, or maybe a bit of both. Either way, the Abrahamic God as the Bible portrays him could not exist. This is not to say that there is no God, and this is not to say that the Bible entirely made up a God. There is no way to prove that an invisible man in the sky exists or does not exist, since there is no evidence for or against him. I am only stating that the Abrahamic God, as the Bible depicts him, could not exist because of these contradictions.
The Abrahamic God can not be proven nonexistent

Fine then. I was mistaken. There is proof that the Abrahamic God does not exist, and that is because there has been no significant divine intervention. The Abrahamic God wanted people to keep believing in him. He made tremendous events happen, such as the plagues or the great flood. However, nothing on that scale has happened recently. Condsidering how involved he was then, it is curious that he would stop now.