BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Second-wave and third-wave feminism have, all in all, detrimentally affected the USA.

Resolution: "Second-wave [1] and third-wave [2] feminism have, all in all [3], detrimentally [4] affected the United States of America [5]" The first round is for acceptance. (Right now, this debate is impossible to accept. If you are interested in debating this topic, post in the comment section.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] "Everything being taken into account" http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [4] "obviously harmful; damaging" http://www.merriam-webster.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
why is it that some religions dont believe in the trinity? Trinity is real.

I just don't get it Mohammad. Really its a fact he gave and broke his own laws with having more than 4 wifes. He told pagan people stop praying to the 360 idol-gods then told them to pray to pray to the Allah, which was the name of the main god the moon-god. Mohammad admits to getting a false revaluation from the devil. Which Moses said in Torah is how you know that they are a false profit when they give a false revaluation and that they where to be stoned. Its fact that Mohammad took his own sons wife for himself. I just don't get it, because everybody knows Allah was pagan god in pre-Islamic times. Why is Allah never defined in the Quran? The old testament rebuked the worship of the moon-god. You always see this moon and star on hats and buildings. Some still pray toward the Mecca several times a day; kissing the black stone; sacrifice to the moon-god; fasting for the month which begins and ends with the crescent moon. I just don't get how he could break his own rules over and over and take from his own family and other and lie and admit to it and pick and choice what he wants out the bible and people still have faith in him I just don't get it. Islam means surrender and Allah is moon-god. I just don't think its the same God of the bible, Islam just bible verses in it.
why is it that some religions dont believe in the trinity? Trinity is real.

Genesis1- God is talking about time, space, and matter. In the beginning=(time) God created heaven=(space) andthe earth=(matter).Whatis Time-pass, present, future. Whatis Space-width,depth,height.Whatis Earth/Matter-solid,liquid,gas What are you a human- body,soul,spirit.Or mind,body,soul. See the understandingoftrinity is allaroundus.ReadRoman1:20(in my own word Romans 1:20 says that God say if you can't understand the trinity look at what I made. Atom-protons,neutrons,electrons.Tree-root,trunk,leaves.Music-melody,harmony,rhythm.The understandingis allaround us
High school Public Forum Debate resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues.

1. My definition of sensitive was simply something that triggers an emotional response in many people. 2. Sorry, we are not forcing them to debate. It's jsut that to eupport educational value it is assumed that they will debate the topic presented. What is a backwards case? They can choose to debate another topic, but LD is very different from PuFo as it is more morals and less religious issue-based, i believe. Correct me if I'm wrong. 3. Debate is advocacy, and for example, a sensitive religious issue >God exists. This requires a side regarding atheistic and theistic religions. 4. This leads me to my 2nd contention, which is about being able to handle these things. Also, we cannot increase tolerance when we bend every fact about these issues towards a case in order to win. The point of debate is to win, and people may give misinformation. Misinformation is worse than no information at all. 5. Religion is taking it another step further. I can say that Obama is a bad president, though we probably will not get into a fight like that. I can say you God is bad, which will be a lot more sensitive. Also, are there any people praying to politicians? Religion is a way of life for many people. 6. If we choose not to debate, we lose valuable education. I think i answered the other question in the previous questions. 7. We should not debate religion not because some are offended by it. Many people are offended. Many people dropped out because of the original November Resolution. Anger makes lashing out and offending people more likely, and the debate enviroment is ruined. 8. http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com... I have provided 7 citations for my evidence on my case. I don't see how this has no reasoning. Please explain. 9.Debate is not the best venue to foster education and tolerance. There are many other ways, like talking to people of another religion, being educated in the other religion. There are more direct ways to learn this. Public education also helps a lot. I tried to refrain from just saying no to a lot of the questions. I'd like to thank you again for the opening this debate. But where do you put your refutations?
High school Public Forum Debate resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues.

I'm sorry i didn't know you were a she D: because of the male professor picture, and I apologize. 1. Do you agree with my definitions? 2. What is comparative religion? :P 3. How is school comparative to the debate community? 4. If debate is advocacy, would you agree that at least one of the rounds in the tournament will be aff/neg, and they will have to argue against their own beliefs in that sense? 5. How is there any way of knowing if an opposing side will bring up a very sensitive contention and offend the debater? 6. Can you clarify " they can run cases that do not directly adress the sensitive issues"? These are all the questions I have. Thank you for providing a nice and follow-able case.
High school Public Forum Debate resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues.

Please only ask questions in this round! Thanks! And just for clarification, I'm a she... 1. Can you please clarify your definition of Sensitive? 2. You said, "This Clause is breached when we force debaters to advocate another belief." How are we forcing them to debate? Can they not choose to debate another form of debate or run a backwards case? 3. How is debating both sides of sensitive religious issues advocating religion? 4. You state that Americans have an unfavorable view of the Islamic religion. Isn't the fact that Americans are so uneducated about the worlds religions that they hold these intolerant view only futher proof that we should debate religious issues to increase our understanding, tolerance, and decrease bias? 5. Can't any topic or statement offend somebody? I have debated many people that have made very offensive comments regardless of the topic. 6. In your first contention you say again that Debaters are "forced" to argue against their own beliefs. How exactly are they forced? Can't they choose not to debate that month or pick a different form? 7. You said that debating religion angers people. Should we not debate religion simply because people are offended by it? Shouldn't religious beliefs be open for contestation just like any other? 8. I ask for evidence that the NFL changed the topic because people refused to debate and that diversity is dropping because of sensitive religious issues. As of right now, you have no actual logic or facts to support your case. 9. "We do not have the life experience nor the brain maturity to talk about sensitive religious issues in a debate environment" Were else could we safely develop our maturity or experience? Isn't debate the best venue to foster understanding and tolerance? If you would please not answer these questions, but just ask your own so we have equal debate time. Thanks!
Capitalism is better than socialism.

A "everyone wins" situation is indeed possible, they just need a large computer to find a average wealth and than tax and give money until that is reached, and every payday just enough is made to sustain that goal, and than the leftover is used to help those who used more money. Yes, there is a reason that the little man can't strive to elevate himself, if he is stuck in the projects of a bad city, and he nor his family can afford education, or their taxes, than they have a son who makes $7.50 an hour flipping burger at a McDonald's. yes there would be burger flippers, but they would get paid more and could live better. Yes benefits are available, but they don't cover everybody fully. I believe you said it "Not everybody needs, or indeed deserves to live a life of luxury." If we don't need it the government can have it, and spread the wealth. One should be glad that they have worked hard to help others. Yes there would be those who are dragged down, but there also will be those who are brought up it is unfair to sum but fair to others. Yea the freedom of speech is a good thing, but few people listen. The government needs to take control because as I said before "So many people are incompetent" and can make the wrong choice, that is why a good ruler in important, if the ruler isn't good than eliminate him. No we don't like to be told what to do, but we need to be lead. We can take control of our lives under the government, there are just limits, and nothing could go wrong and life will be good. I didn't say spelling, I understand that in the UK though we all speak English we have different words, like you cay "earnt" we have words like "hecka" and "borne," you don't use the word borne?
Capitalism is better than socialism.

Yes there are winners and losers, but we all hate to lose, and why not have someone there to make sure everyone wins, and why not that be the government? With socalisim those sad little people would be up with everyone else, and those who work hard should stop and help bring up the others. what makes the big man in a high rise better than a guy in a shack next to a creek in suburbia? Just because big man, has money doesn't mean he is better than little man. Little man could be a great guy with a good job, but walked in on a robbery and got pistol whipped, and became mentally unstable and he cant do or remember anything, bug man should help the poor little man an put him in a institution, and help pay his bills. If not that he can at leas let him stay in his high rise until he can find a hospital or something, you want the little man to die young in the cold? Or you can let the government put him in a hospital be full of days. And its funny how it`s the simple things in life that mean the most, not where you live or what you drive or the price tag on your clothes, there`s no dollar sign on a piece of mind. Why should the wealthy care if they have the same everything else, and wealthiest people are the least happy. You said "I think Capitalism is the best situation, as it enables those who have worked hard to keep what they have earnt" this can lead to the lower class stuck with what they may have been borne into. Please lets not use regional dialect, not everyone knows what "earnt" means.
Capitalism is better than socialism.

It's not a matter of "those guys I don't want to help," in an ideal situation everyone would be equal, it just does not work like that. I believe it would be "incompetent and rather stupid," (your wording) to assume that such an idealised situation, would in practice work. There always have to be "winners and losers," people will always be born with different statuses in society. "socialism," your choice of term, meaning an organisation of society which, the community own and control. Is in essence, a good, fair idea if you are looking at the people who are worse off in the capitalist system. However, those, that have strived to earn their money and social status, and would be rewarded in a capitalist system by reaping the benefits of this would be worse off under socialism. Also your suggestion of placing society under the sole control of the government, would only create problems as taxes would be raised and it would be the wealthiest people who would lose out the most. Surely this is equally as unfair, as the inequalities you have highlighted against the poorer people in a capitalist society? It's easy to push a controversial issue like this into the hands of the government for them to take care of but there is no outcome that would be a "win, win" situation. Therefore, as politically incorrect as this may seem. I think Capitalism is the best situation, as it enables those who have worked hard to keep what they have earnt. I am not assuming that "lower classes," do not work as hard/are not as intelligent etc..not at all, but I do not believe that the wealthy (whether it be through their heritage or own merits) should be punished in an attempt to be "fair" to all.
Capitalism is better than socialism.

So many people are incompetent and rather stupid. People who don't understand the situation may do the wrong thing that's why the government needs to be in charge, and face it, no one wants to work, so just let the government take care of it! One of those guys you don't want to help could be your reincarnated grandfather, or you friends mom, who cant go outside because they are afraid of the sun and they don't have a computer to work from home, if you give the government your money than can give the computer! its rely a good idea.
the bigger the government is the better life is for the majority

So your statement is "the bigger the government is, The better life is for the majority", So I will be debating against that. Note that I am not necessarily debating against forms of socialism, But the idea that the bigger the better. I hope we have a good debate! The first argument I want to discuss is the Nordic countries. You say that a Nordic system will work in the United States, But the United States is much larger in size and population. Only the state of Texas is larger than any of the Nordic countries. So what works for them wouldn't necessarily work for us. Plus, The US is wealthier than all these countries combined, And only Norway has a higher GDP per capita than the US (mostly because of its huge oil reserves). The second argument I disagree with is high taxes on the rich. High taxes on the rich actually hurt the economy. Instead of spending their money on business which grows the economy and purchasing stuff which grows the economy too, Their money goes to the government. Many rich people will even stop paying taxes alltogether by fleeing to foreign countries or tax fraud. The Laffer curve (https://www. Investopedia. Com/terms/l/laffercurve. Asp) represents what happens when taxes are high very well. The premise of your argument is that the bigger the better. That's wrong, As shown by big-government countries like USSR, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Nazi Germany etc. All these countries have big government and have horrible human rights. So while you can point to countries with supposedly big governments that are successful, I could point to countries with actual big governments that were terrible. And finally, A big government would be unneeded and extremely inefficient. Tens of thousands of bureaucrats would have to be paid from the government budget, Which would only increase the taxes. Increasing the taxes would require more bureaucrats and so on. Decreasing taxes, On the other hand, Would shrink the amount of bureaucrats which would give us the ability to hire less government officials. Big government sucks, And the many fascist and communist countries that existed have proven that.
the bigger the government is the better life is for the majority

High taxes on the rich, Free health care and free education, Subsidized housing and food programs, Lots and lot of welfare for families old people disabled and the poor, It might not be socialism, Or maybe you think that is socialism, But i would keep a market economy and have the government decide who gets what like the nordic nations and systems, Welfarism, Socialism, Whatever, Call it what you will, Its progressive capitalism how about that? Whatever you want to call that system they use in the nordic model, Thats the model for me! Itworks for those peole why wouldn't it work here? Why?
Spells concerning matters of lottery winning

Wow. Big Boy Big Girl LGBGT and any other two seat convertible or hard top for that matter. Win the lottery and spin the flottery as it were. I cast spells too and they will cost you 25 pence in old money and feed the birds tuppence a bag and he's a cheeky cockney chimney sweep cor blimey luv a duck. Threeway lottery wottery woo as any artisan baker is aware and don't try and push your luck to far on a Saturday afternoon. Wait until later and you might just find your luck's in. Twist them around gently and insert in a proprietary but meaningful fashion. Front then back and support with threeway twiddle twaddle twoo and wait for those sublime visceral explosions as your balls rattle and come to fruition. And then pop out. Plippety plop.
Spells concerning matters of lottery winning

Winning the lottery and getting back a lost lover are pretty much the same as the former feels like the latter. If you are one of those people that ask lottery spells do they really work you are at the right site and your answer/solution is a click and phone call away? It is always really up to someone to make a decision that they have had enough suffering and they need to change, And that change comes in the name of a spell. Forget about the money problems that you have failed to get away from to live your life and try out the lottery spells verified to work just as fast as the other spells. No more asking do lottery spells really work when there are experts as I in this spell casting business backed by the enormous clientele list I have
MIG's Tournament Round 2: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

This debate will be for the second round of MIG's tournament between my esteemed opponent RoyLatham and myself.Resolved: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is Sound.Rounds:1. Acceptance only2. Opening arguments3. Clash4. Closing arguments/clashThe Leibnizian Cosmological Argument (LCA) Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. The universe is an existing thing Therefore the explanation of the universe is God. I cite the The Nature of God by A.W. Pink [1] to describe the complexity of the Lord:[F]rom a review of the perfections of God, it appears that He is an all-sufficient Being. He is all-sufficient in Himself and to Himself. As the First of beings, He could receive nothing from another, nor be limited by the power of another. Being infinite, He is possessed of all possible perfection. When the Triune God existed all alone, He was all to Himself. His understanding, His love, His energies, found an adequate object in Himself. Had He stood in need of anything external, He had not been independent, and therefore would not have been God.He created all things, and that for himself (Colossians 1:16), yet it was not in order to supply a lack, but that He might communicate life and happiness to angels and men and admit them to the vision of His glory. True, He demands the allegiance and services of His intelligent creatures, yet He derives no benefit from their offices, all the advantage redounds to themselves (Job 22:2-3). He makes use of means and instruments to accomplish His ends, yet not from a deficiency of power, but oftentimes to more strikingly display His power through the feebleness of the instruments.I ask readers to take note that we should rationally accept an argument as sound if the affirmation of its premises is more plausible than the negation.Note that the citation from A.W. Pink is simply to give a preliminary description of the nature of God. If my opponent would like to debate whether or not the existing God is the Judeo-Christian deity, it needs to be done elsewhere. The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument specifically speaks to the existence of God as a necessary, personal first cause. I believe that the characteristics of omnipotence, omniscience, free will, etc. that are normally associated with the God of Christian Theology follow from the validity of the LCA, but again, that is not what the LCA sets out to prove.Sources1. http://www.pbministries.org...
Advanced industrial civilization will collapse by 2100

Hullo everybody! Please only accept this debate if you are willing to have a serious discussion of the topic. "Collapse of advanced industrial civilization" includes: 1) A sharp drop in global human population caused by drought, pandemic, or famine; 2) The widespread collapse of governments without a stable large-scale state forming to replace them; 3) Any other upheaval (social or ecological) that results in far more simplified technological, social, and economic practices in global society. Next round is for acceptance only and clarification of definitions, if needed. The burden of proof is on me.
The home mortgage interest deduction should be eliminated in the United States

The home mortgage interest deduction is one of the oldest and largest federal tax expenditures. The president’s fiscal year 2010 budget reports that this tax deduction will cost the treasury an estimated $131 billion in 2012 (1). Proponents of the home mortgage interest deduction believe that it creates an incentive for home ownership. However, virtually all researchers have found that the current mortgage interest deduction is not a cost-effective tool for increasing homeownership. As two Harvard economists concluded, “Since the 1960s, the homeownership rate has barely budged, staying within a fixed band between 63 and 68 percent. Moreover, the changes in the rate that have occurred seem more related to the suburbanization of the economy than to the subsidy created by the deduction” (2). It’s not surprising that the home mortgage interest deduction has failed to raise homeownership rates. As it turns out, the deduction’s main beneficiaries are not individuals on the margin between renting and owning. This is simply because the mortgage interest deduction is only available to itemizing taxpayers, who are most likely to be individuals in the middle and upper income tax brackets. As a 2008 study found, over 85.5 percent of individuals with annual incomes between $75,000 and $125,000 itemized. However, only 23.4 percent of those making less than $40,000 itemized (3). Furthermore, the average value of the home mortgage interest deduction increases greatly with income. Individuals with annual incomes less than $40,000 who opt to itemize receive an average of only $91 from this deduction. However, individuals making $250,000 or more receive an average of $5,459 (3). Clearly, the home mortgage interest deduction has served to only increase economic inequality in the United States. This deduction is unnecessary and should be eliminated. Doing so would actually benefit several Americans. As two researchers concluded, homeownership rates for adults between the ages of 25 and 34 would be significantly higher if this deduction were not in place (4). Conclusion: The home mortgage interest deduction has not raised homeownership rates, as several intended it would. In addition, this deduction has worsened the existing economic inequality in the United States. Eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction would promote financial responsibility and increase federal income tax revenue. This revenue could be used to pay down the United State’s excessive debt. Ideally, the home mortgage interest deduction would be phased out over a period of ten years. This would minimize any potential impact on homeowners. References: . http://www.urban.org... . http://www.economics.harvard.edu... . http://real.wharton.upenn.edu... . http://usj.sagepub.com...
The home mortgage interest deduction should be eliminated in the United States

Resolved: The home mortgage interest deduction should be eliminated in the United StatesDefinitions:Home mortgage interest deduction: "Allows taxpayers who own their homes to reduce their taxable income by the amount of interest paid on the loan which is secured by their principal residence (or, sometimes, a second home)"http://en.wikipedia.org...Eliminated: To remove or get rid ofhttp://dictionary.reference.com...Round one will be for acceptance only.