BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Music Challenge

Many thanks to Rosalie for accepting this challenge! Rules and Conditions 1. Each person must provide one original performance of any music per round after the first round. Only you are to be playing or singing (exception being instrumental accompaniment).This must be done in the form of a video for confirmation, preferably uploaded to a video-sharing website such as YouTube or Vimeo. 2. There is no limit to the music that you select, but it cannot exceed a length of 7 minutes. 3. Your performances will be all that are judged; all written arguments of any sort are invalid (this excludes additional information). 4. Violation of any of these three rules will be equivalent to an automatic concession to the opponent in the current round. 5. The judges that have been nominated are Sapphique, TUF, Blade-of-Truth, FourTrouble, ESocialBookworm, and TurleDoveSammie (original thread: http://www.debate.org...). There is a two-week period for them to vote. 6. Speaking of judging, the scoring is as follows: 2 points for the first round, 2 points for the second round, 2 points for the third round, and a final point given to the overall winner (note: This is not necessarily dependent on the majority of rounds won; for example, if one person greatly outclassed the other in one round and was only slightly in the other two according to the judge's opinion, then they should still receive this point). RFD's need not be in extreme detail (but are still needed), and are inherently subjective. Judges are not required or encouraged to be hardcore critics (they may do so if they want to); points simply go to the person whose music that the judge enjoyed the most in that round. 7. On that note, should a judge think that there was a tie in one or more rounds, then they simply need to either split the points or abstain. 8. These rules may be changed prior to the acceptance of the debate. Good luck, Rosalie, and I look forward to listening to you!
Random drug testing should not be used in public schools.

If you weren't going to stick to the resolution as stated, why the hell did you take this debate? You really know how to piss me off, unfortunately. Okay, the Patriot Act had a "sunset provision" and it was revised before being renewed. There were substantial changes (though not substantial enough in some people's eyes). Gee, I don't know why don't you ask him? I got that statistic from another book which cited Dr. Holtorf's book. I'm not citing sources if you won't. I'm against testing. No, we don't need to go there. I don't see anything wrong with marijuana use incidentally. Take a look at my other debates. .. I would favor legalization/decriminalization of MJ use. I cited several that support my position. How about you try that out? I'm not buying the book either, it's called a library. They contain knowledge, look it up. I'd like to point out to voters that my opponent did NOT stick to the resolution, or hardly debated if you ask me.
Random drug testing should not be used in public schools.

That position is indefensible, mmmkay? It would be a really stupid debate, mmmkay? It is anyway, mmmkay? I got my hair cut, mmmkay? The Patriot Act has not been reformed, mmmkay? Yes where did Dr Kent Holtorf get that statistic? "Drug testing is one proposed way to curb use, and i am against it. " The testing or the use? Who proposed it? Do we really need to go there? What is wrong with MJ use anyway? Would you favor other forms of curbing MJ use? "High school students find MJ and other illegal drugs much more available and easier to obtain than alcohol. " -As long as you're having me cite things, why don't you cite this one? You cite one that supports your position then. I am not going to buy the stupid book, mmmkay?
Random drug testing should not be used in public schools.

In schools that randomly tested students, 12th-graders were more likely to smoke marijuana. But, and pay close attention because this what makes the stud(y)(ies) laughable: These results could just as easily been read as: In schools where 12th-graders were more likely to smoke marijuana, the students were more likely to be (randomly) drug tested. This is hardly surprising and makes the whole study questionable. Who commissioned it anyway? The White House. Why? "It" was displeased with the results of the earlier study which just happens to be the other study cited. Why? The earlier study did not address "random" drug testing. It just addressed drug testing. Non-random drug testing would have to be either the testing of everyone, or the selective testing of some based on some criteria other than random. This is even worse than random. So the study, even if everything else said about it is true, is completely worthless. All government studies are. All studies are government studies. Not to mention who paid for it. And remember "peer reviewed journal?" This is not that either. It wouldn't mean much even if it did prove anything which it does not. The two studies, if they were done properly which they were not, would be an elaborate comparison of the effectiveness of random vs. non-random drug testing. The latter presumably being the testing of everyone. So my opponent is presenting not very good evidence that drug testing either should or should not be random, we can't really tell which because the studies were so poorly controlled. How did they determine student drug use? Let me guess. There are plenty of sociological studies on teen drug use. This is not one of them. This is a charade. What could be more hilarious than Joyce Nalepka's grandchildren and the World Trade Center and all that Islamic hashish. http://tv.mpp.org... http://www.debate.org... No don't read that boring debate. Here http://www.AGrowthIndustry.info... light one up and watch a movie while I head on down to the library to go after this Dr. Keith guy. You can cover it up with vinegar. All your suggestions for avoiding testing will not work because they test the temperature of the urine also. Cold urine makes even them a little suspicious. At least you will be rejected for vinegar and not for drugs. This Dr. Keith guy better be good.
#2 Evidence of Jesus Christ

Here are some good web sites Pro may like http://metrostateatheists.wordpress.com... Then a Christian site that assumes there is a Jesus but raises and addresses its own questions, if you read through this site then definitely go to the next one I list"..you won"t believe the answers it gives. The whole Christian argument hits the floor and play dead after you read the archeological and historical findings. http://www.plim.org... a Christian site kind of boring and then go and read a summery present at http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com... it"s a good read which will knock your socks off" : )
#2 Evidence of Jesus Christ

Simple answer. After the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Lance of Longinus, we found out that Adam, a Seed of Life created by the First Ancestral Race, arrived on Earth several billion years ago. However, when Mother Lilith crash landed here, Adam was forced to incapitate himself with his own Lance of Longinus. And thus, Lilith birthed life as we know it. And several billion years passed, and humans eventually evolved. However, occasionally Adam genes corrupted human DNA, and this brought about Christ. He was able to use his AT-Field to manipulate the world around him, and thus his "miracle" stories were formed. I don't see how you can doubt the existence of Christ and Souls after Second Impact. For god's sake, half the world's population was killed. And their Souls were clearly visible! Sources: http://wiki.evageeks.org... http://wiki.evageeks.org... http://wiki.evageeks.org... http://wiki.evageeks.org... (Seriously, I thought I'd try to see things from a Christian's point of view, and it's damn hard. Everything in their damn religion is logic-less)
#2 Evidence of Jesus Christ

As Con has seen no evidence, I shall present some to him. But first, I'd like to request, for the sake of preventing confusion, that he include citation marks whenever he quotes me. I'm sure he will understand the necessity of keeping things simple and clean I'll start with the Roman historian Tacitus. In his book "Annals," (Written in 116 AD) Tacitus sought to cover the history from the reign of Tiberius, to that of Nero (from 14-68 AD). In it, Tacitus makes a brief reference to the execution of Christians, and remarks on Christ himself. "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind" Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... A relatively contemporary historian had, in fact, referenced Jesus. Addressing the problem of why Christ had never appeared in many Roman records during his lifetime, the Empire most likely did not want his infectious ideas spreading and therefore censored or destroyed records written within Christ's own lifetime. Only later would the censor be repealed. However, that is only an inference of mine, and whether or not such a censor existed is still a mystery.
#2 Evidence of Jesus Christ

You're the one asserting your position, cite your sources that Yeshua did not exist. Or, rather, sources explaining the lack of evidence. If you refuse to argue with evidence, I feel I have the right to argue without evidence as well. Also, please note that I am arguing that the man "Yeshua" did, in fact, exist. I am not arguing for the existence of "Jesus Christ" or his "miracles."
Abortion should remain legal.

Well I was out of town with family so I forfeited. And I didn't want to do this debate after I was done with my other because you had seen my whole debate and a large sum of my argument. Plus, I'm not really into this site anymore. Sorry. Q1- Bodily autonomy and free will, yes.Q2- No. Q3- In comparison to nature, it is a parasite the host has created that takes nutrients from the host. Because the fetus's body is in the woman's body, the woman has superior rights to everything. I guess we can parallel this to receiving rights in America, the older you are, the more rights you gain.Q4- Once again, you cannot base your argument on the fetus being alive knowing that neither scientists nor philosophers have pinpointed the moment life begins. And you cannot mirror the dependence of a fetus/woman to someone else/who they are dependent on. The fetus cannot do anything and 100% relies on the woman for nutrients. If you re dependent as a child, teen, or adult, there is still a sort of independence. If the person you are dependent on dies or gets sick, you can find someone else to help you. However, if a woman gets sick or dies, the fetus is out of luck. So that is why you cannot compare the severity of the dependency of the fetus to anything else, logically at least.Q5- We are often taught, from the Constitution, that you are born with these natural rights. The natural rights were set by the Constitution, and not all countries give their citizens these rights. Why focus on giving a fetus rights that aren't granted to people that can are conscious and breathing?I would like to point out that I refrained from calling the fetus either alive or dead, so the Con had the BOP for calling the fetus alive.I suppose I should ask questions then.Q1- Who is the murderer and why?Q2- Would miscarriage be considered involuntary manslaughter, a crime punishable by time in jail and fines? If no, why not?Q3- What gives anyone the right to strip the breathing woman of her rights to her own body?Q4- If we are not required by law to donate organs or blood to keep someone alive (whether it be famiy, friends, or strangers), then why is the woman obligated to keep supplying for the fetus before it is born?Q5- If the mother had pressing conditions such as lack of funds, serious illnessses, or the fetus has a high chance of being born with mutations, does this allow abortion?
Abortion should remain legal.

Cross-examinationPlease answer and explain your answers to the following questions:Q1 - Is bodily autonomy the only right allegedly violated by making abortion illegal?Q2 - Would my opponent agree that the right to life supersedes all other rights?Q3 - Why is the fetus not entitled to bodily autonomy?Q4 - Is dependence upon others justification for the termination of a life?Q5 - If the fetus is indeed alive, why should it not be given full natural rights?I will close this round by repeating my request for my opponent to provide a citation from a credible and modern source for his claim that the scientific community has not yet determined whether or not the fetus is alive.
Abortion should remain legal.

I accept.I would like to submit that abortion entails the intentional destruction of the fetus as the means of ending the pregnancy, and therefore we should use this Merriam-Webster definition of abortion as it is more accurate than the one presented by my opponent: "a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus."[1]I do not contest any other defininitions presented by my opponent.Please state your case, Pro.Sources1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Abortion should remain legal.

In Round 3, I, the Pro, will ask my opponent, the Con, 5 questions that they will answer in Round 3. In Round 3, they will also ask me 5 questions that I will answer in Round 4 before I begin my rebuttals. Definition of Terms. These are to be accepted throughout the debate unchanged and unargued. Abortion- The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy [1]. Coming from Latin word abioriri, aborior, abortus meaning miscarry, be aborted, pass away [2]. Human Being/Person- A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance [3]. Murder- The crime of deliberately killing a person [4a]. The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another [4b]. Involuntary Manslaughter- The act of unlawfully killing another human being unintentionally [5]. Miscarriage- Loss of an embryo or fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy [6a]. Stillborn- When a baby dies after the 20th week of pregnancy [6b]. Life- The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity of growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death [7]. Rape- The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will [8]. Sources 1. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...... 2. . http://www.latin-dictionary.net...... 3. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...... 4a. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...... 4b. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...... 5. . http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...... 6a. . http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...... 6b. . http://www.babycenter.com...... 7. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...... 8. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com......
Terrorists Should Be Tried in a Military Tribunal

Let me go ahead and pick apart this massive wall of text and see what we get. ==============================================================="Wouldn't it be better for the accused' sake, to have their case held in a military tribunal, in which their would be authority trained and taught to keep their opinion and emotions out of their cases in deciding the fate of the accused?"Just because they are told to keep emotions out of their ruling it doesnt mean they actually will. They also do that in civil court cases as well where people are asked to remain unbiased when deciding ones fate, but both civilians and military soldiers are more then capable of showing bias towards a terrorist on trial. "If people know about the trial and its location, wouldn't civilian trials for terrorists not only put the jury in danger of protests, but also the terrorist? "It wouldnt.... Al-Qaeda doesnt have the capability to wage an attack in central Kansas where one of their own in on trial, and the safety of a terrorist on trial is just as questionable in a civil court case then a military tribunal, there is no given difference between the two. "If we do hold the trial in public, wouldn't that put national security at risk, as military secrets could be leaked? "No, because its not a secret that the US tracks down terrorists and knows what they are up to..."Why would the Constitution still apply if the crime wasn't even committed in the US?"Because its possible that some terrorist attacks could indeed be committed in the US. Theyve come close on a couple of occasions and had they not gone awry, then the crime would have succeeded and be committed in the US..."They commit acts of war against the American people, not crimes."Had Al-Qaeda been behind the Boston Bombings then it can be argued it was both an act of war and a crime committed by the two brothers who were behind it. The two arent mutually exclusive. "They should be tried at military commissions, not in civilian courts where they have access to the same rights as U.S. citizens"Opinion....==================================================================Military tribunals do have their use, and are often the go to option for terrorists who are caught in acts against the US government when NOT on US soil. However when the crimes ARE committed on US soil, then the states arguably have a better cause for putting the terrorist on trial in a civilian court since the terrorist attack affected them more then the US government. There isnt an inherit benefit to trying terrorists in a military tribunal rather then a civil case. The only difference is that the terrorists on trial gain access to specific rights (not all) that by themselves dont give the terrorists an edge, they just make the judicial process fairer. So why make military tribunals the only option when 1) There are good cases that call for civil trials, and 2) There is no inherit benefit to giving terrorists military tribunals over civil courts.
Atheism is not a religion.

I accept these terms and also return the ritualistically instigated internet high-five with enthusiasm. Just as so to be clear, definition from dictionary.com. reï¿½liï¿½gion ;[ri-lij-uhn] noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. Also just as to be sure again with the definition from http://www.merriam-webster.com...: reï¿½liï¿½gion noun \ri-ˈli-jən2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices I will now insert one witty quote. "If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God, and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul." -Isaac Asimov
Atheism is not a religion.

Resolution: Atheism is not a religion.Rules: Debater must have typing experience.Debater must have internet access.No excuses or forfeitures.Must structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.Must insert one witty quote per round.Rounds: (1) Acceptance + Internet High Five(2) Main Argument (3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument (4) Response to rebuttal + voting issues (one paragraph)"I once wanted to become an atheist. I gave up the idea. They have no holidays." -Henny YoungmanI accept this debate which I have thusly created and challenge those of rhetorical wizardry to a verbal duel. With my hand elevated and ready for forearm pronation, I slap yours in a ritualistic manner. Good luck to whomever accepts, and may the Gods smile upon you during this debate.Let the game begin!
Atheism is not a religion.

Before I forget to do so, here is a witty quote: "Men will wrangle for religion; write for it; fight for it; die for it; anything but live for it." -C.C. Colton Thank you for this topic, as I think the is an interesting topic to debate on. I look forward to a good debate. Also, I am agnostic. Just putting that out there. Main Arguments: The set Definitions for Atheism and how it Pertains to the Definition of Religion: Atheism is loosely defined as a belief in which there is no god and/or deity. Another definition of religion besides the one I posted in Round One is : a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects (dictionary.com) Atheism is a belief and there is a population that refute the existence of a god. I am not entirely sure how the criteria set by Pro are official and if it is widely accepted (Do not take this as a rebuttal). Atheism is not simply confined to absolutely NOT believing is gods and living with that one belief. I will expand on this in the next point. Philosophies based on the non-existence of Deities: Because someone does not believe in a god or gods does not mean they are devoid of a belief at all. In fact several philosophies and religions do follow a leader. Several religions do have followers loosely classified as atheists. Buddhism's followers, for example, do not believe in a god or deity. I will not dwell further in any specific religion. A list of non-theist religions: -Buddhism -Sciencetology -Humanism - Raelism [1] In these religions, no being(s) are divine in any way. Moral Values and Set Codes:In the stated religions above, there are set values and codes. Buddhism has the Eight-Fold Path that describes what traits to follow to lead a good life and have acceptable moral standards [2]. Raelism, though containing questionable morals, do indeed have morals. This religion does hold some ground and these two example beliefs do not hold one being divine. Sacred and profane things are both described in their respective "holy" books.The Religious Feel:Atheism does not inspire religious feelings? Refer to the non-theistic religions stated above. I have now classified several religions that fall under having atheistic beliefs and therefore have followers who are atheists and follows atheism's beliefs that do follow the Pro's qualifications. (Note: This is not a rebuttal, but rather a statement ascertaining my point and/or points.)Atheism: Religion or Not?Ok, now let us just theoretically dismiss the other non-theist religions and just focus on not believing a god or deity, even though Pro did not specify adding other non-theistic religions as atheism and did not specify just the belief of no god.Post Scriptum:I apologize in advance for spelling and/or grammatical errors I have made during this round as I have a lot on my hands at the moment. This is no excuse as I find this debate educational of sorts and wish Pro good luck. :DI will be awaiting your rebuttals.