BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God Chooses Life

I do not believe god chooses life. round one is for acceptance and opening statements. My argument will be based on these topics: 1. BoP of existence of God even if he existed, he did not create earth in six days the way the bible says he did. There is evidence of the big bang, so even if he created earth, he created the Big Bang....which would probably destroy himself in the process. "An action reacts with an equal reaction." says Newton's third law. http://www.physicsclassroom.com... And even if the Big Bang itself did not destroy god, the energy spent on creating the Big Bang would destroy God! 2. How does God "choose"? (definition: "pick out or select (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives.") (from google definition) life definition: "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." 3. Even if God "chooses life", how will he perform it? (will he have to choose between fungi and virus...?)
we should expand nuclear energy

As Pro is the one asserting that nuclear should be expanded, they are absolutely required to provide a convincing case fully supported with sources. Pro claims that I [as Con] have *not* showed what the problems are with the expansion but I made three separate contentions in round one, and went into detail about what each issue was. Including environmental damage, health and safety concerns, and the expensive of building nuclear facilities. Once again I also outlined eight separate sources, that covered the issue of nuclear and the detriments to it in-depth. Whereas all Pro has done is state their personal opinion in a few small sentences, without giving any actual argument or referring to any evidence to support their stance. Pro argues that "there are really no problems", but hasn't shown how this is the case. Rather, they are merely making an unsupported statement as they have done with this entire debate. If there are no "problems" with the expansion of nuclear energy, Pro should include some sources to convince us how this is so. Pro additionally argues that the USA just used nuclear bombs twice [which I previously stated], however it's more that they were used in the first place and caused the deaths of such a large amount of people. The important fact is that they were used, and could be used again in any future or existing conflicts. The more expansive nuclear is, obviously the easier it is to access it. Pro states that the point has "no basis in reality', but the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings actually happening in reality clearly proves this incorrect. Given the current amount of conflicts in the world, the threat of nuclear being used is still very real [9. ] . http://www.nti.org...Alluding again to what can potentially happen when nuclear facilities go wrong or are damaged, the Fukushima disaster in Japan in 2001, which lead to 120,000 people being uprooted from their homes [10. ]. http://www.theguardian.com... To conclude this debate, I will remind any potential voters that Pro has failed to affirm their resolution and show [or at least give evidence for] why and how nuclear should be expanded. They haven't listed any benefits and have almost wholly dropped my entire case.
we should expand nuclear energy

i may not provide sources of other countiries successfully using nuclear, but there's not much to say. there's no problems so there's no news. it would be easier for con to show the problems they have, which she hasn't done. because she can't, because there are really no problems. the USA used bombs just twice when nukes were first created, and because of a serious war that was occurring. they haven't used them since. this is mostly just scare tactics that have no basis in reality for realistic scenarios. con has to resort to such far fetched argumentation, because nuclear really doesn't have serious problems.
we should expand nuclear energy

Rebuttals: Pro has already admitted that there are "cons" to using nuclear, and as I've outlined in round one--it appears to be quite evident that these "Cons" outweigh the "Pros". The main Con being the huge expensive of nuclear energy; especially when it comes to establishing nuclear power plants. Pro states that "other countries" are doing fine with using nuclear energy but fails to reference what these countries actually are and provide any source to support their assertion. Moreover, this doesn't answer exactly how nuclear energy should be expanded. Just because other counties in the world have nuclear energy [this should be obvious anyway] it doesn't provide a credible reason for it to be expanded. Especially if we're speaking in terms of it being "expanded" regionally, like the U.K or U.S expanding its nuclear. What other parts of the world have in this example is simply irrelevant. As for not using the weapons that we currently have, Pro entirely misses the point here. The fact is that nuclear weapons have been used twice by the U.S and contributed to almost 200,000 people being killed--which Pro has dropped from my round one argument. Nuclear has been used on a large-scale in history and could very well be used again if certain circumstances were to arise. In this kind of event, millions of lives could potentially be lost and as with Japan, the suffering and damage caused could be extremely prolonged. And this is only referring to war examples, in round one I highlighted how drastically nuclear energy can impact people when there's been nuclear accidents, the direct effect of nuclear waste when it's exposed to people is in fact severe. To conclude my rebuttals, Con has practically dropped each contention of mine--including the environmental impacts and case[s] of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the significantly high costs of nuclear. I used a number of eight sources in support of my arguments, all of which Pro has ignored and seemingly not looked at. Instead of responding with a full argument on as to why nuclear should be expanded, they've exclusively gone over the same points and repeated their first round. I'd note that the BoP is on Pro to affirm their resolution and show how nuclear energy should indeed be expanded. So far, no sources have been used and no real case has been made.
we should expand nuclear energy

as already admitted, there are cons to nuclear, as there are cons to all sources. at least with nuclear we aren't destroying the atmosphere. and if you look at other countries, they seem to be handling things just fine. per weopons, the USA already has hundreds of them. using nuclear energy isn't going to add to that,or change that. and we dont even use the weopons we do have anways.. we won't magically start using them. con points to chernobly which i already acknowledged. but she didn't respond to the idea that that was a long time ago, and other countries are doing just fine. con says nuclear is expensive. but to be sure, n o on would build it if it didn't give profit more than is put in. con mostly just used arguments i already addressed and didn't address my response to them, such as how other countries are doing just fine with waste and disasters. what does she make of that?
we should expand nuclear energy

they've made a lot of head way with nuclear energy safety since the disasters of the past, such as Chernobyl. that is why even though other nations are expanding the technology, you dont hear much about problems or disasters. every technology has problems, air pollution, oil spills etc.... but nuclear while not perfect is good enough and better than the others. this will reduce air pollution and give us free energy. other nations are having a lot of success with this technology and will have a leg up over us.
Solon is FIIIINE

Solon is FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINE
This House Would Impose Democracy

Democracy is a system for the people. But to fix problems within the country, those problems must be known by the public and the solution as wellThen, surely, the answer to this problem lies with education. Depriving these people of democracy is not the answer. You are generalising the people in oppressed countries by saying that they are all intellectually inadequate, but by giving them the information they need, they can then go on to make an informed decision. The popular mentality leads is to believe a variety of things, which can affect politics drastically. In the U. K. for example[1], 58% of people do not think that crime is falling, when since 2006/7 crime has fallen by 19%. Once again, we can only hope to remove this ignorance through education. You assume that the democracy imposed will be purely democratic, but I did not state this once. These people will have more political autonomy, but that doesn't mean they we will be left to go in blind. An authoritarian regime does not require any political knowledge or interest. Indeed it doesn't, but that does not make it better. In an authoritarian regime the people have no power. Zero. If something happens which they don't like, they can't do anything about it. In democracy they are given freedom of choice about those who govern them, which can be based of knowledge if they are given the right treatment. My opponent thinks that we are going to enter the country, set up a democratic system overnight, then leave them with whatever shell of a government remains. This is not the case. We will aid them for as long as they need. This map shows us some low intelligence countries. My opponent assumes that this means that democracy will fail. However, we can see from this map that democracies in Africa, which are considered "most at risk" are actually doing rather well. Therefore, this shows that even "low intelligence" countries can have a working democratic system. Also, my opponent says that these people have low intelligence, but in what areas? I am sure that they would have more intellectual prowess in certain areas than we would in the west, so to deny them this freedom because of "lack of intelligence" would be fundamentally immoral. I also apologise. I would love to make these arguments more developed but I am under the stress of revision.
This House Would Impose Democracy

I believe that the imposition of democracy should be carried out on all governments that oppress the citizens of said country. Of course, I am not saying that this should be an overnight affair, nor that we should instantly march in with guns blazing. We are simply saying that we should at leasttryto help those countries which are in dire need. This would be carried out by a joint collaboration of countries who would, at first, try to diplomatically contact the land in question. If all else failed then we would seek other courses of action. By fighting for democracy, we would support those individuals who can't do it themselves In a society ruled by a corrupt governing class, it is often difficult to speak out against them. If the majority of the nation want a voice, then it is morally required for each and every person to do what they can to help that cause. Internal revolts often lack the power that is needed to overthrow the governing class ( and can often lead to more killing than is necessary), so it is the job of an external force to intervene. It is clear that democracy is the preferred form of government, as seen by the graphs below. Most people agree (even in the countries which don't have democracy themselves) that a democratic system is needed for a better society. Again, it is the obligation of the west to do everything they can to help those that need it.Democracy promotes peace Democracy is a government of the people, for the people. It promotes the very idea of freedom and equality by allowing anyone who meets the requirements the right to vote for those that govern them. Furthermore, wars between democracies have been substantially less than those between other forms of government. Democracy is the only system of government which promotes political autonomy and human rights to the degree it does, so it would be immoral not to allow those in troubled and damaged societies the same principles. Even if we delve into the economic benefits, we can see that their is a partial link between economic growth and democratic systems of government.SUMMATION OF ROUND ONE:Democracy is the only system of government which allows the members of that country the most autonomy, which is needed in our society to promote peace and equality. I look forward to my opponent's arguments and the subsequent rebuttals.http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.newnations.com...http://www.nl.idebate.org...http://www.convinceme.net...
Obamacare should be abolished.

Oops, I forgot about this... gotta rush it. Pro loses because he does not have any impacts. Just because Obamacare costs a lot does not mean it should be abolished. The fundamental role of government is to protect the lives of its citizens, whether from foreign invasion, crime, injustice, economic downturns, or even medical conditions. Rights violations can come in all forms, and the government is obligated to take measures against all of them; Obamacare is no different. If the government is willing to spend *56.8 billion* dollars to prevent terrorist attacks [1], which can at the most take away a few hundred lives per year, then surely it is justified in spending "70 million dollars" (a comparatively insignificant expense) to safeguard the lives of roughly *8 million* people [2]. The monetary costs of Obamacare alone simply do not outweigh the immense benefits it produces in terms of the preservation of human life. I rest my case. Vote Con. [1] http://www.fastcompany.com... [2] http://m.huffpost.com...
Obamacare should be abolished.

That was just my opening statement but anyway. Obamacare no doubt has been increasing healthcare prices. According to section 2715 of Obamacare, it is mandatory that your healthcare plan has all the requirements that are stated in Obamacare, if your plan doesn't meet up to these requirements after 12 months of the passing of Obamacare then you will get a financial penalty. Therefore, you would have to pay for a better plan if your plan doesn't meet up to Obamacare's requirements. This has had a profound effect on American citizens, in California 1 in 4 adults reported that they will struggle to pay the debt that there healthcare plan will give them. This will also puts strain on the states budget, though the government is covering all of the budget in the start. Support for the program will go down to 90% by 2020. Every year slowly less money will given to the states for funding Obamacare, Obamcare could end up costing millions of dollars for states in the near future. In the next 5 years, according to Nancy Pelosi Obamacare will "greatly exceeded" 70 million dollars annually for the states. From this, I conclude that Obamacare should be abolished because of costs and strain it brings on the American citizens and the states. Obamacare must be abolished, Americans must stand up to this horrible bill and get rid of it once and for all. Sources: http://www.gpo.gov... -Section 2715 of HR 3590 -14 http://www.usnews.com... http://www.joinocpa.org...
Rap Battle

You're an ugly @$$ latina who couldn't pay to fvck tramps. You make me wish Donald Trump set up concentration camps. I'm pumping iron, my weight gain, is insane, you're in a world of pain, when I pop your a$$ back to Spain, and you're nothing but a blood stain. I will maintain my reign, your raps are plain and you're lain in the rain sulking on the street lane in your emotional chain, waitin' to get run over, cause you don't wanna get slain, by me, so you should just abstain. My d!ck has problems yes, it shoots up way to high. It's like my own Bat Signal, cause you can see it from sky ;) You removed account information, cause you're a pvssy with no class. But I know you, you're really a b!tch wants to fvck somebody's @ss. Or you are the really void, my d!ck would make you paranoid. I wouldn't want to conquer Spain with my log and asteroids. What are you doing in Moscow? Putin murders gays. A girls' lane you shouldn't plow or like Nazis they should set Jew ablaze. Go down some champagne, can you do that with your walnut sized brain? You can't tell music from a quote, who the fvck are you to gloat? (As seen here ;) https://mobile.twitter.com...) My bratwurst-like c0ck is more like Pinocchio's nose. But every time you lie about it, the son of a b!tch grows. I believe it's "Magna Carta", you nutcase you are a disgrace, who will never me embraced, between your thick skull and that so-called brain outrageously dull, it has enormous space, over there you could have a NASCAR race. Your ovaries are dead, you'll never get a d!ck head. Aside from your ghetto $1 inch long dildo that still cuts like a stiletto cuz it's too deep like a puddle tryna fit a jeep, even if you banged some unattractive creep, they wouldn't make a peep, you might as well go to the doc to get a cock and try to fvck a sheep, but even then it would reject you, even in its sleep. Don't get me started on your t!ts, they are like pears. Cause they saggy, scratch that you f@ggy washed up dog, don't get your tail waggy you couldn't even fvck Shaggy. They are like onions because they make you cry, and and guys wanna die, or like Medusa cause they will turn you to stone, 'cept for their d!cks they will stay soft as shown, so you can technically get boned, but against their own will, and hey better than living while you are getting them blown. If I'm really 100, what does that say about you? Your body looks aged as fvck, while I screw the whole crew, of thots from America to China and all the way to Peru. Idgaf 'bout Charlie and Neville, who needs a main chick? I got my stick shift being rode until my last minute ticks. Emilrose, I got more h0es than humanity has toes, my ferocious serpent sprays like a hose, I even got my own industry goin' on when I give girls white clothes.
Rap Battle

Thanks for accepting Shocky, and good luck! Now onto my first ever rap: Here he is, the guy who calls himself shockyHe doesn't stand a chance, for him this will get rocky and by rocky I don't mean the music but when like when your girlfriend fv'ks your friend Neville because you couldn't take her to the next level Too busy listening to Hendrix and Floyd, now you have become a meaningless void. Some sexless beast that no one wants to fv'k, but everyone wants to mock Your tiny little weener, now wonder you can't feed her. Every chipolata out there got more girth in it than you, and yeah pinocchio's peni_$ too I'd swallow that harder than the magna carter and turn you right into a d1kc suffering martyr By the time I finished, it be even more misshapen and need a whole lot of taping if I am not mistaken Can't even fap with it while listening to your rock gods, and it now looks even more pathetic than them packaged dead cods But hang on I haven't finished yet, I want another tiny piece of youDidn't even get the time to check your ball$ack, oh god yeah I can see it's a mishap Got nothing going for you, you're now the opposite to shocky and you ain't feeling cockyInstead you be bruised, because you have been cruised, destroyed by my dirty mouth and left there abused Can't even stand up and too ashamed to look in the mirror, no point looking down there now it's practically non-existent and no nobody will have missed it You say you were born in 1916, well that would explain how my pv$$y is still clean, yeah that's why my fv_*ing lips don't gleamJust go listen to Bob Marley, he ancient like you...now I'm gonna go fv_kc with your other friend named Charlie and make him suck on my pu$ and feed on it like cous cous
Only smart people can make a smart decision

Even smart people have regrets, so they don't always make the right decisions. Name one person who truly has no regrets. They may claim no regrets, but it would be because the good outweighed the bad, not because there was no bad. Einstein supplied the world with the most dangerous weapon of all time, and and Hoffman created a drug when he hated drug culture. Was Einstein not smart? Was Hoffman not smart?
Only smart people can make a smart decision

There are different types of smart, and if we're using the literal meaning of educated, then yes. However, smart people can make bad decisions by accepting what they believe to be common sense in a field that is not their expertise.Let's say that Martha Stuart was "educated" on what was happening at Enron; however, she was not aware of the laws regarding insider information. Her decision was an ultimately bad one because it landed her in prison.
Only smart people can make a smart decision

Your claim that only smart people make smart decisions and smart people always make good decisions is baseless, and relies on the circular logic that smart people don't make mistakes, and people who make mistakes aren't smart. I am still not satisfied that Hoffman did not make a mistake when sharing LSD with the world. Nasa has made small mistakes that caused big problems. Being smart does not make you imune to mishearing an order or in this case, measuring with he wrong system. http://www.businessinsider.com... Let's not forget that the theory of relativity was just proven inaccurate. I would add more but I really should not seeing as this is the end of the debate, and you have no chance to respond. Good luck in the poll.
Only smart people can make a smart decision

Still I think that his invention is for our own benefit and I don't blame him, because if he wouldn't invent this weapon the world wars would never came into the end, as we know it from history right after WWII, Cold War was going to start but the main thing that stoped it was Einstains weapon, people started to understand that all countries have the same power and if they continue it may may destroy the whole world That is why I think that only a few people out of millions can be genious, and what i mean by the word genious is that these people never make any mistakes, even if they make a mistake. their mistake is for their own and also for other people's benefit
Only smart people can make a smart decision

To consider the advent of the atomic bomb to be a positive would be an insult to Einstein's memory. The reason he shared his invention was because he believed if he didn't share, the Germans would find out first. The Germans failed, filling Einstein with regret at having brought into existence something that may have laid dormant for a much longer time. His decision was bad in that no one can predict every outcome. And he wasn't just smart, he was a genious, so if Einstein could make a mistake, what's to say a smart person couldn't?
Only smart people can make a smart decision

I think that Einstain is the one without any regrets, he invented the most terrible weapon in the world and because of that weapon nowadays the number of wars beyong countries is falling down, because most developed countries nowadays have atomic bomb and they won't fight each other because they have fear... If nowadays any developed country like USA and Russia attack each other it will bring up into the end of the world Thats why I think that atomic bomb is not as bad as people think of it