BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Anti-Trinitarianism

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" (1 John 5:7). How can one coherently reject the doctrine of the Trinity when this verse is so very clear? We know the Word is Jesus from John 1, who created all things and who is God. Notice in Matthew 28:18 the disciples were commissioned to baptize in the name of the FATHER, SON, & HOLY GHOST! In Genesis 1:26, God says "let us make man in our image." The possessive plural pronoun "our" necessitates the multiplicity of the one making the proclamation. Genesis 1:1 tells us God was there along with the preponderance of passages which refer to the Father God (Abba Elohim) as Creator (i.e. Isaiah 64:8). Genesis 1:2 tells us that the Holy Spirit was there along with Genesis 2:7 ("naphach," the Hebrew word which denotes "breathe" in Genesis 2:7 and Ezekiel 37:9; compare also to "ruach" the Hebrew word which denotes "Spirit" in Genesis 1:2 and Psalm 33:6). And John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16-17, Ephesians 3:9,and Hebrews 1:1-3 tells us that Jesus was there. From these verses we can make a solid argument that the "our" in Genesis 1:26 refers to the Trinity. With this verse alone one might make a claim that there is more than one God, but verse 27 tells us that "God created man in HIS own image." So in verses 26-27 we go from "our" (plurality) to "His" (singularity) thus "these three are one." We can therefore say with confidence that "The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deuteronomy 6:4). He is the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost. "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen" (2 Corinthians 13:14).
Veganism

I don't think meat eaters are evil at heart. They have simply been raised in an evil society. Many people are completely unaware of the atrocities that take place in a slaughterhouse. McDonald's makes commercials about singing, happy cows. Don't fall for the "it's Humane" argument. Killing is never humane. If you want to discuss food supply, consider this: An estimated 80% of our crops are used to feed animals on factory farms. Those same crops could be used to feed starving children. The meat industry actually starves more people than it feeds. And you can get plenty of protein from other foods: http://www.adaptt.org... (Feel free to explore that website.) Animals are literally skinned so that people can wear fur, when they can wear a variety of other materials. Hunting is a sad excuse to shoot animals for fun. No one hunts for food, because it is too expensive, time consuming and inconsistent. They simply hunt for the thrill of the kill. Zaephou also made a comment about our canines. Consider this: gorillas have bigger canines than we do and they eat plants. Men have nipples, but that does not mean they should breastfeed. Humans have canines, but that does not mean that they should consume dead and tortured animals.
Veganism

Just because someone eats meat, it doesn't make them evil. An animal's purpose is to create. We use them for YOU to survive. If we didn't kill animals, almost half of humans' food would be gone. Meat also has protein, which is a big part of a daily diet. Manufacturers also use many animals' skin and fur to make products for humans. Humans have been hunting and eating meat for years, there's truly no point in stopping it now. Animal products are good for you, that's just fact.
Veganism

We have all been raised in a society that has convinced us that wrong is right. From childhood, we have actually been taught that animals are something to use, to be made into a sandwich, or a bag or a jacket. That society also once said slavery is okay. All good people follow the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Animals qualify as others. They feel fear, pain and grief, just like people. In terms of suffering there is no difference between killing a cow and killing a person. They both feel the same degree of pain, they are both innocent therefore both cases are wrong. Quite frankly, eating meat is a very selfish thing to do. Meat eaters believe that as long as they get their bacon, animal abuse is okay. They believe that the taste of chicken or beef is more important than the lives of innocent and terrified beings. That mentality is pure evil. Meat is pleasurable to eat,but you can also eat a totally healthy vegan diet. Therefore meat is killing for fun. Meat eaters make the same excuses Nazis made, and slave owners. They decide that because someone is different, they are inferior. If humans were really superior to animals, we would know better than to slaughter 150 billion of them per year. Yeah, you read that right. This is the worst holocaust that has ever taken place, and yet it's happening right this second. The only time it is okay to eat meat is to save your own life. Not because it tastes good. You also don't need to eat meat or animal products like dairy and honey to be healthy. Humans are biologically herbivores. Our teeth are designed to chew plants. Our jaws can move side to side, like a cow. Dogs and other meat eaters can't do that. We also have the correct intestine length in relation to our torso to be herbivores, and we have no carnivorous instincts. People see slaughterhouse footage and it makes them upset. If a bear saw a slaughterhouse he would think it's a buffet. Slaughterhouse workers have been known to get PTSD. Think about that for a second. Meat, in my opinion is disgusting. When you eat meat you are literally eating a dead body. A corpse. Gross. You don't need cows milk to be healthy anymore than you need dog milk to be healthy. You can get plenty of calcium from fruit. Besides torturing and slaughtering billions of innocent animal per year, the meat industry cause 51% of the carbon emissions on this planet and destroy more forest than any other industry in order to raise cattle that will be murdered one day. In short, we've all been duped. Bad health, a shitty planet and torture are not, and never will be worth the taste of bacon.
U.S Wars in foreign countries/Nations

"9/11 is a result of us occupying their country."Occupying whose country? Saudi Arabia? False, wrong. This statement is completely ignorant and UnAmerican! Are you saying those people deserved to die because it was a "blow back"?!?! Are you saying we caused people to jump into jets and fly into buildings? How? We are not trying to control every country out there. You need to do research and you need to get your facts straight. Read the news, look into foreign affairs for gosh sakes before you start a debate of this nature."over throwing their government leaders" Overthrowing whose government leaders? This is all so vauge and unsourced you're making all of this up? If you're talking about Arab Spring then we were asked to intervene there. Syria is going through something similar and have asked for our help and have so far ignored them. Are you happy? Syrians now die by the thousands at the hand of the dictator because of people like you. Bask in your own ideas. "Terrorist with us trying to control every country there is out there. 9/11 is a result of blow back. We have military bases in Germany, Iran, Iraq, and many more."Nearly every single one of our military bases exist due to treaties. There are very few places where the United States exisists without permission. In Germany we are there due to a treaty left over from WW2 [1]. We have pulled out of Iraq completely and turned the country back over to its people [2] the war there is over, and we certainly do not have a military base in Iran (lol).Also we were attacked by terrorists because terrorists do just that, spread terror. That is their goal propogated by extremist Islamic beliefs that cause them to hate the west. There were terrorist attacks in India, Spain and England that went through or were stopped and these countries are not trying to "control every country". Your argument is false and illogical. Our economy is bad because we have a trillion dollar deficite. Cut everything else but DEFENSE is one of the things the CONSTITUTION calls for. Not welfare, not healthcare, those things are not in the constitution like defense is. Cut the spending fix the economy.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.reuters.com...
U.S Wars in foreign countries/Nations

9/11 is a result of us occupying their country. We have been over throwing their government leaders. We are creating wars and Terrorist with us trying to control every country there is out there. 9/11 is a result of blow back. We have military bases in Germany, Iran, Iraq, and many more. How many more do we need. Our economy is bad. Every form of saving money that we can think of should be done. Maybe when we have more money and better economy then we should start controlling more countries, because if we make the wrong people mad then we can start saying hello to war.
U.S Wars in foreign countries/Nations

The burden of proof is on you therefore I will merely refute your claims - make your case."I believe the U.S is spending this ridiculous amount of money in Foreign wars."What do you mean by a "ridiculous amount"? In 2011 we spent $900 billion dollars on national defense. [1] The government spent 1 trillon dollars on pensions alone, add that to government healthcare and welfare and you get 3.7 trillon dollars meaning defense was outspent more than 3:1 in favor of other government social programs. [1] So if you're talking about our budget then no, we have not spent a ridiculous amount, in fact it is lower than most other fields of spending. " And what for are we fighting for them"We are fighting our wars for various reasons, the biggest being stopping terrorism. 9/11 was a horrific event that we vowed to never allow something like it to happen again. We couldn't just roll over and do nothing. So we moved into the Middle East in order to prevent terrorism from stiking again. Afghanistan was run by the Taliban, a group who didn't allow women to work, go to school or disobey men in anyway. [2] In fact before the US invasion you would have been stoned for participating in such discussions as these if you were in Afghanistan. We have reasons for our actions overseas but many people have forgotten and need to be reminded that there is evil in the world."We have so many military bases around the country that those soldiers are spending their money in another country making them money and not making our country money."This is not really all that true. Most service members while overseas will shop at a Base Exchange such as an NEX. These stores sell American goods, English products and is stocked with US goods. [3] It is basically a Target for service members who are serving on a military base. These exchanges serve as the staple shopping center for nearly every soldier serving abroad meaning that their money goes back into the military system and is used to by products you would find in the US. Does some money get spent overseas? Of course but it certainly is not making a difference in our GDP. "We need to stop being the police of the war and start thinking for our country and its big debt we owe."We are thinking about our country. The United States does not do anything that does not benefit us as a whole except for humanitarian aid missions. Should we have ignored Haiti? Japan? Indonesia? Do you wish to stop our humanitarian efforts? Outside of those everything we do has a calculated purpose to benefit the United States. As for the debt, go look at my source 1 and tell me that there aren't other things we can cut before cutting the defense budget which Obama already chopped up this year. Solve the debt here at home. Protect America abroad.Thank you. [1] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...[2] http://www.cfr.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Resolved: A just government ought to prioritize civil liberties over national security.

I will start by responding to the two questions my opponent brought up. The first question they raised was whether the government is meant to protect them or their rights. The most simplistic response to this question is that the government can"t protect your rights if it doesn"t protect you first. It is by this philosophy that the first priority of a just government ought to be national security. To tie this into your two arguments, we are not taking away the second amendment right to bear arms, we are prioritizing national security first. This means that a just government would make it harder to obtain a gun in an attempt to stop potential terrorists from getting their hands on weapons. For the average American, none of their rights are being infringed upon. In the con world, a just government is taking necessary precautions to better protect its citizens. For example,the NSA isn"t infringing upon the average American"s rights by collecting and storing their data. A human being only goes through your data if it is flagged for possible threats. This could happen if you send a text to somebody saying "we should kill President Trump. " To now address my opponent's second question, on whether the government is fulfilling their duty, I would argue that it is to the best of its abilities in the status quo. A report by researchers at George Washington University found that 71 ISIS followers have been arrested since March 2014. The also found that "this new phase requires a whole new approach to counterterrorism and homeland security beyond the traditional responses. " They go on to suggest that this number would be higher if it were not for the public outrage due to the documents leaked by Snowden. They argue that if allowed to access even public social media accounts, they could find more suspected terrorists. This is why I negate the resolution. A just government would allow for its employees to do their job to the best of their abilities and with the resources that they need to do their job. This violation of privacy is beneficial to all as it helps to protect them and their loved ones. Also, going back to my first arguments, we can only allow this violation of privacy only when there is a significant threat to national security.
Mechanical Pencils vs Pens

Arguments1. I first apologize for not stating any sources of my claim the pens also have universal refills. However I will do so now as my first argument. The refills are universal among the specific brand but are also very interchangeable among brands if necessary just as mechanical pencil leads. There are also "D1" size refills which are the standard for common ballpoint pens. http://canada.ibuyofficesupply.com...http://www.garlandpen.com...http://www.jetpens.com...2. Ball point pen tips come in many sizes just as mechanical pencils do. Hardness of lead can be beneficial only to an experienced pro. With out the experience hardness of lead is insignificant. For pens, the lack of different kinds of ink make it easier for the consumer to choose a pen.3. My argument still holds valid that pens have a less of a chance to break because my opponent has not given evidence that a mechanical pencil doesn't break and a clicking pen mechanism can rust. I've had mechanical pencils break but not pens rust. Common sense tells us the more parts there are, the more things can go wrong. My opponent has the Burden of Proof on this point. Since my opponent did not refute my rebuttal of his 3rd counter-argument in Round 2 I will take it as he conceded the point. Thanks.
Mechanical Pencils vs Pens

Arguments 1. I still do not believe pens have "universal refills", as you gave no proof. On this matter, pencils are still winning. 2. You can get many different sizes and hardness's of leads, but not many types of ink. You can get many different leads, such as hard, thin lead for technical drawing; HB, medium lead for general writing; and thick, dark lead for drawing and sketching. This gives a wider range of things you can do with a mechanical pencil. 3. Mechanical pencils don't break. You can't loose pieces of the internal mechanism of a mechanical pencil; it's all sealed shut. Pens, especially clicker pens, on the other hand, you can loose parts rendering the pen useless. Many people say that because mechanical pencils have more moving parts, they are more likely to break, however this is not true. First of all, mechanical pencils contain lead, which does not dry up in any way, which means the mechanism can't rust or anything. Pens on the other hand contain liquid ink which can rust and dry up the internal mechanism. Also, owning a mechanical pencil shows that you are responsible and mature enough to be able to own a precision instrument. As always, I am looking forward to your response!
Mechanical Pencils vs Pens

Rebuttals1. "Mechanical Pencils propell lead by means of an advanced mechanisms; advanced mechanisms are much cooler than a cap or a clicker. This means Mechanical Pencils are more artistic and badass."Advanced mechanisms with more moving parts means a higher probability for the mechanism to break. A pen with a cap has no mechanism with less potential to break. The mechanism of mechanical pencils have broken on me before.2. "Say if I had a 0.5 mm mechanical pencil, I could buy any 0.5 mm mechanical pencil lead for it. With a pen on the other hand, say if I had a pilot G-2, I would be forced to stick to the Pilot G-2 ink refills. As a result of this, mechanical pencil lead is much easier to get your hands on than specific ink refills. This makes mechanical pencils more versatile."Pens to have universal refills. (1)3. "When ink starts to run out, it makes the pen scratchy and horrible, lead on the other hand stays the same smoothness no matter if it's on a fresh lead, or the lead is about to be completely depleated. This makes Mechanical Pencils more efficient."Pens do dry out and need to be scratched on paper before ink will come out again. However, the amount of time to do so is very insignificant. As well, small pieces of mechanical pencil lead often break off if accidentally press too hard which drastically lowers its efficiency. Thanks.
Mechanical Pencils vs Pens

Round Two Counter-Arguments: 1. Pens are the standard; standard is boring. Standard is plain, normal, average. Mechanical Pencil is more unique, even rebellious in a sense. 2. Mechanical Pencils are also permanent. Although maybe not as permanent as pen, that's the price you pay for erasibility. Contrary to popular belief, pencil is infact 99% permanent. Pencil does not fade. Infact, "Graphite Pencil is a very stable material. It does not fade in light. It does not bleed in water unless other dyes were added.". That there was a quote from the national archives, which was included in an article(1) by Joe Thorn, entitled "pencil does not fade". He contacted the national archives and even got photographic proof that pencil does not fade, which is included in the article. Pen, on the other hand, bleeds when it goes in water, no matter if it says waterproof, it will bleed after a while. I will conduct an experiment and take photographs to verify this. 3. This is false. Infact, mechanical pencil lead comes in a wide variety of colours, including blue, red, green, pink and orange.(2) (1) http://www.joethorn.net... (2) http://www.jetpens.com... Thank you.
Mechanical Pencils vs Pens

I will begin by thanking my opponent for the opportunity and better structure lay for this debate than the last one.Arguments1. Pens are the standard in developed countries. They are used for formalities such as signatures.2. They are permanent. The ink soaks into the paper and will remain for long periods of time whereas pencils markings are on the surface of the paper. Friction over time will wear pencil markings off.3. Pens come in a variety of colors where mechanical pencils do not. A variety of colors are very beneficial for highlighting certain parts of text as well as color coding to differentiate different parts of text. I await my opponents rebuttals.
Mechanical Pencils vs Pens

Hello all! As you may know, my last debate on the same topic was cancelled, as it had no structure or outline. This is my new debate, same thing though, and most importantly, same people; me(mechanical pencils) vs misterme(pens). In this debate, Pro/For = Mechanical Pencils and Con/Against = Pens. If you have anything else to say in a round, you may, but no more or less than 3 arguments. This goes the same for counters. Here's the new structure/outline: Round 1: Statement: Argument: 1. 2. 3. Round 2: Counter: 1. 2. 3. Round 3: Argument: 1. 2. 3. Round 4: Counter: 1. 2. 3. Argument: 1. 2. 3. Round 5: Counter: 1. 2. 3. Conclusion: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Round One: Statement: Mechanical Pencils are far superior to pens. They are a work of art, while pens are a work of a 3 year old. Argument: 1. Mechanical Pencils propell lead by means of an advanced mechanisms; advanced mechanisms are much cooler than a cap or a clicker. This means Mechanical Pencils are more artistic and badass. 2. Say if I had a 0.5 mm mechanical pencil, I could buy any 0.5 mm mechanical pencil lead for it. With a pen on the other hand, say if I had a pilot G-2, I would be forced to stick to the Pilot G-2 ink refills. As a result of this, mechanical pencil lead is much easier to get your hands on than specific ink refills. This makes mechanical pencils more versatile. 3. When ink starts to run out, it makes the pen scratchy and horrible, lead on the other hand stays the same smoothness no matter if it's on a fresh lead, or the lead is about to be completely depleated. This makes Mechanical Pencils more efficient. I'm curious to see your arguments for why pens are best, and later on in round 2 your counter arguments to these fantabulous 3 arguments I've given! Many thanks~
Beer is better than alcohol

well , since im god and your are all sheeple for apple, and u little sheeples stole my goddam apple form the one tree i told u not to, i wont kill u. alchahol ius way way way way waaaaaaaay better then beer, bcuz evenh though i have never tried beer i have seen pictures of it, it lookslike a pot of piss mixed with bubble bath. i would prefeerr to drink alchol then that sh*it. ughghghghgggg it loooks dirt nasty e.g: http://cdn.beerstore.com.au... see they even admit its piss because they down wa3nt to lie because hat reallly bad. and alchahol gets me pretty fu*cked up and is a dam good lube... yeah WORD! back to this other kid
Beer is better than alcohol

Con assumes the burden of proof by making the claim that beer is not better than alcohol. Beer: an alcoholic drink made from yeast-fermented malt flavored with hops. Alcohol: a colorless volatile flammable liquid that is the intoxicating constituent of wine, beer, spirits, and other drinks, and is also used as an industrial solvent and as fuel. "Better" was left undefined. Per debate rules, if the claimant has failed to define a key definition the opponent may define it in the next round. Better means tastes better (this is implied per the resolution anyway). Alcohol tastes like gasoline. It burns and wrenches the taste buds. Beer has alcohol in it, but is flavored with yeast fermented malt and hops. It's enjoyable to drink for many (me included). Thus, the resolution is negated. Back to con.