BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rejecting The Existence Of God Is Reasonable

voters, this man has clearly violated the laws of debate pleasantries, and he's being racist! This man needs to be taught a lesson. And I have many to give! For examples, did you know wolves don't actually howl at the moon, on the contrary, we be howling to god! Because wolves are really really intuitive beings, unlike humans. Humans are imbeciles. In the words of the infamous followerofchrist1955, yall human muppets are going to hell. Wolves on the other hand get to dine with vampires and lesbians for eternity. After the rapture, wolves will rule the world, just you wait n c. Don't believe me? You ignorant fool, how can you be so blind! Why do think the lesbians love watching/reading twilight, for them its their bible OKAY, so there's yr proof, now fvck off you racist 'biologist'. I got an E in my gcse biology, why??! Because wolves don't fvck about with the science. Apart from psychology, science is stupid. So stupid, why have bloody science when you can just follow bible 101,God recommends it. Nuff said, wolfy out!!
Rejecting The Existence Of God Is Reasonable

Thanks Con for that...argument?Collection of statements?Series of words barely strung together?Thanks Con for whatever that just was.*Responding to Con*I hope it's obvious that my case was dropped like a bowling ball covered in Con's anal lube, so I need not rehash creation or precedence being temporal or that morality needs not an ultimate source.On to what Con said...Con blathers:"You know back in the olden days, when your mom was still using couldrons yeah..."My response:Is this how British people refer to the past?Oh the cauldron days were splendid, jammy, and proper!Con informs:"sheeples believed that fairies lived in trees."My response:Con is referring to the lesser-known animal that is half-sheep half-human (Homo Ovis Aries Sapien).While analyzing Con's preferred sexual partners could explain a lot about Con, the fact that sheeple believe there are fairies in trees is irrelevant to whether or not it's reasonable to reject a creator of the universe/source of morality.Con reckons:"humanity has a natural phobia of the unknown, whether it be darkness, death, or your face!"My response:I get that Con is trying to say that humanity has a natural phobia of my face, but the idea that they have a fear of my face because it's unknown makes no sense.Right?Like if it's the case that my face is that bad that it's something to be feared, it would have to be known to be so hideous...Con's insult sucks.*Conclusion*I extend all arguments, and I await an actual response from Con.
Rejecting The Existence Of God Is Reasonable

You know back in the olden days, when your mom was still using couldrons yeah, the sheeples believed that fairies lived in trees, hence why we say touch wood. Do fairies exist?, we will never know, n yet we still fear them! Why? you ask, bc humanity has a natural phobia of the unknown, whether it be darkness, death, or your face! I hope this answers a lot questions, have a good day!!
Abortion should be banned

Yes it's another one - but it's a hot topic, whattcha gonna do 'bout it? (And because my opponent made clarifications, I will as well. This refers to generally available abortion regardless of reason - in cases where severe or fatal injury could be caused to child or mother, this would not apply). "1. Abortion is not a wrong form of murder, as some make it out to be. " Your argument here is a bit fallacious. Murder, legally, is the forceful and non-consensual act of ending a HUMAN BEINGS life. Stepping on an ant is not murder. It's stepping on an ant. And while a fetus may not scientifically be a human being, there is potential for humanity there. Suggesting we should diminish their life suggests that we should do the same for individuals with mental retardation or severe physical disorders who can't contribute to society. Yet no one suggests we put these individuals down, or refer to them as "nonhuman" though they're technically at the same capacity. Also, scientifically you're nothing but a compilation of cells too. So am I. Cells and atoms make up all of us. To devalue a fetus simply because they aren't fully constructed cells, or don't contain as many cells, seems to ignore the basic biological processes that create all of us. 2. Forced beliefs. Isn't getting an abortion forcing you're belief on someone who doesn't even have the capacity to make their own decisions yet? "So basically, I believe that people should be free from other people's coercions when making this decision. " Except the fetus I suppose. Yes, I know the fetus can't make decisions yet, but once again I refer you my comparison above - neither can people with severe impairments. Yet there are laws protecting these people and no one is arguing we allow people to kill them unless they're on the verge of death. Besides, this is under the assumption that abortion isn't murder. Say it is in my belief system that stealing is okay. Is the law forcing me to follow a belief system that isn't mine? Isn't the idea of stealing being wrong just a social construct that's enforced by majority belief? And as a response to your preempt, to say it doesn't effect us, how are we to know? Speculations about time travel show us the smallest actions in the past can change the future in way we can't even determine. That abortion may not at the time seem catastrophic, and even in the future. But that my friend is what I like to call "alternative consequence bias" - that is, you see that nothing has changed because you don't know any other alternative. Things could be drastically different. As as a final statement, abortion goes against human nature and the laws of natural selection, because it removes a principle that has existed for years and puts it in the hands of imperfect human beings. By performing our own "natural selection" we could be doing catastrophic damages to our species, when you consider what legal abortion implies - that the poor and less educated will have more children and the wealthier will have less. This isn't optimal evolution.
The influence of the media is detrimental to the American political process.

First off, thanks for taking the debate. First meet is next weekend, and this is great prep. :) That said, in response to your refutation about how the media is simply mirroring their viewers, this is a straw man argument. The media clearly influences this process in a detrimental way, regardless of whether they deliver the killing blow or not. Is it entirely the fault of the media, ie Fox News? Of course not. But regardless, the media is still perpetuating this "swirling vortex of self-perpetuating bigotry and hatred". As far as front-loading goes, you misunderstand my point. The states want to be the first to have their primary, because the earlier in the race that state's primary is, the more important it seems, meaning it gets more media coverage. So while the media may want a longer overall process, the states want more focus on their own primaries, so they get scheduled earlier and earlier, causing quicker decisions to be needed by the public. Yes, the full election process takes two years, and that is a very large chunk of time. But front-loading can cause the election to be essentially over after four or five primaries, due to the winner getting all the benefits as mentioned in my case, and that is definitely too quick. And I'm not sure you can say that most people enter primaries knowing who they are going to vote for prior to the media coverage. Presidential elections, perhaps, due to party associations, but not primaries. Being overwhelmed with information is still being overwhelmed with information, regardless of if you intended to be or not. It can also be difficult to tell fact from fiction on the internet, and oftentimes, it's difficult to tell which side of the argument is which as well. It's sort of like that commercial with the French guy, and the girl who says "they can't put it on the internet if it's not true." It may sound silly, but it is sometimes hard to tell reliable sources from unreliable ones, especially if you are new to or inexperienced in using the internet. Once again, as far as the Obama scandal goes, the media was still covering it in a biased manner and affecting their viewers in the same way, whether they were doing it to please the target audience or not. Essentially your entire refutation is saying that the media's bias is just a reflection of the people they are trying to cater to, right? And while I don't necessarily deny that, I don't think this is topical to the resolution because I can still clearly prove that the media is detrimental. Are they doing it to please audiences? Sure, but the detrimental effect is still clearly there. And I completely agree about my definition, have you by chance found a better one? It would be good to get that straightened out. :)
The influence of the media is detrimental to the American political process.

The issue with saying the media has the power to decide candidates is that the media is only responding to the biases inherit in the people who watch their shows. The media is still a business and like most businesses the lesser performers or things which are judged as bad for their image overall get cut. This is why you can have a network like Fox News, which is a response to a slight liberal media bias. It started off with a large, isolated market and has become a swirling vortex of self perpetuating bigotry and hatred. They are just responding to the biases inherit within their viewers. Now to deny their influence on the selection process would be disingenuous. The media likewise is only responding to the candidates which their viewers like. So while they may give completely insane candidates airtime in the beginning(Herman Cain anyone?) they respond to and air the candidates their viewers respond to. Your assuming front loading is bad. There is an entire debate to be had about how a shorter election process could actually be helpful. Take Australia"s much shorter elect ion process. You"re also not considering that many people enter elections already knowing who they want so a frontloading could actually serve to lessen media influence. In the age of the internet I already question the lack of resources argument. I"d hazard I guess most voters under 50 get their news from the internet. Which is a haven of bias and which people must make deliberate decisions to go to biased websites, the exact same way that people already watch TV they agree with. So when they are overwhelmed with information it only affirms an inborn belief. Again I"d say to look at how the different news medias covered it. The right wing media wanted to make them all out to be HUGE problem and make him the worst and most thuggish president ever. This fits in with the narrative which they already sell to their audience. The other outlets tried to play the events off, a narrative their audience would want. Basically this entire debate rests on a couple. One with the definition actually :P. Anyway most of my stuff rests on the premise that most people have a bias which is a combination of both nature(http://newsfeed.time.com...) and nurture(Parents political party is a significant predictor of child party affiliation). Which means this bias is passed onto their children who watch media which affirms their belief ad infinitum. Also your definition of democracy is a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting. Using your own arguments, I could say that a handful of people at the top could be deciding the election and thus it would still fit the definition of democracy. That"d be boring though:):).
The DDO leader board does not accurately list the top debaters

Definitions: DDO - debate.org, this website leader board- The leader board can be found on this website under www.debate.org/people/leaders. accurately- depicting the truth top debaters - debaters that are the best on DDO If one to look at the leader board, one would realize that the leader board bases the top debaters on the number of wins. This is inaccurate for many reasons: 1) The leader board is dominated mostly by people who have been here for 2 years. If a new member won debates at twice the rate of the best debater, it would take that member 2 years to become the best debater. If a new member won debates at the rate of the best debater, the new member would never become the best debater. This is obviously bias towards older member and unfair towards new members. 2) The leader board does not take into consideration the win ratio, but only the amount of wins. There are people on the front of the leader board that have only won less than half their debates. Win ratio should be taken into consideration. 3) The leader board does not take into consideration who one is debating. If one is able to win a lot of debates by constantly winning against bad debaters, that does not make one a good debater but an average debater. If one goes up against good debaters constantly, then he/she will be less likely to make it on top of the leader board since (a) One is more likely to lose. (b) Going up against the best debaters requires much more thought and time into one's debate. This will harm ones chances of getting into the leader board, since he or she could spend his or her time entering other debates. More debates= more chances to win = higher ranker on leader board
Germans being "nazi"s"

Sure that may be true. But those that you meet seem to be the nazis but how can you be sure they are all german? I"m a german and I"m friends with Jews so I"m confused why you seem to believe that they are all evil. World war 2 was started by the Germans yes. But they were In chaos at the time from their loss. If you want to speak wrongly about something then you should at least research something. Germany has taken lots of action against racism but even so others are much more racist. In fact you probably don"t even understand a German"s point of view. With lots of immigrants entering all the time it gets annoying to the point where you can get racist. But that"s not only Germans.
Germans being "nazi"s"

Thanks for challenging me to a debate. Anyway I want to send a message to everyone that I really really hate Germans. I consider them the biggest enemy of me ever. There are reason why I think like that and I hope many people would understand me. 1. Germans kill many innocent people in WW2 including jewish 2. Even nowadays many Germans still remain xenophobic and anti semitism. As to what I had experienced many of Germans that I met are racist and always said bad stuff about Jewish. They also told me that killing jewish and others was justified. And of course they also admire hitler. (I guest many Germans still admire hitler nowadays) 3. Many folks al over around the world hate Germans because what they did in the past. 4. It's the Germans fault that WW2 happen 5.if majority of population disagree with hitler then he would never ever be able to be a leader or win the election. There are many many more reason why I really hate Germans. However I will named those later. In conclusion Germans are worst human ever on earth.
Resolved: Viewing Pornography is Morally Wrong

This debate should be impossible to accept, if you somehow find a method of accepting you automatically forfeit all 7 voter's points. If you would like to play, just leave me a comment :PDefinitionsPornography: Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.View: look at or inspect (something).Morally wrong: out of line with morality.Morally right: Not out of line with moralityFramer's intent This debate is meant to discuss the various reasons why watching pornography is or isnt acceptable. This debate wil Not consider religious factors or decrees on the matter of pornography to vindicate or otherwise negate the resolution. Any attempt to incorperate religious proclimations on the matter are stricly forbidden and will result in the forfeiture of all 7 voter's points, as agreed by the person who accepts this debate. Burden of proof is Shared.I exclude forms of pornography such as snuff pornography, child pornography, pregnat pornography, mutilation pornography, rape pornography, fecal matter pornography, all forms of explicitely illegal forms of pornography (in the US), and all forms of pornography where the women/participant is forced to do some action against their will. However all forms of hentai including rape hentai, mutilation hentai...ect are up for debate. Fetishs are included.Please be mature about this debate and only accept if you truely believe that viewing porn or specific types of porn not excluded in these rules cause adverse effects that outweigh any positive effects. Thank you and perhaps we will have a nice and controvercial debate."No great advance has been made in science, politics, or religion without controversy." -Lyman Beecher"Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost." -Chauncey Depew
Science has proven that are at least 100 trillion Gods.

Indeed, I think for the purposes of this discussion we can assume that stars do exist. My argument didn't dispute this point because it isn't relevant to understanding whether or not god exists in the sense of the word as it's been cited. Again, atheists and theists alike are using the term 'god' to denote an actual-in-fact divine being. A person or object merely worshipped as a divine being is distinct from an actual-in-fact divine being. In fact, it's the correctness of the belief itself that is at issue in those debates. In your version, there's either a semantic misunderstanding or a logical misstep. We can fix either one. Do you think that Dawkins and theists are debating over whether some people believe in god, or do you think that believing that something is true makes it true?
Science has proven that are at least 100 trillion Gods.

This is an interesting perspective. Thanks for the point of view, and please allow me to provide a rebuttal. Whether or not we agree with Mr. Dawkins, I do think we should be able to at least understand his position, and the position of his debate opponents. I think you may find that this simple explanation is enlightening enough that it resolves the issue immediately without getting too deep into the technical aspects of science and existence and logic. Of course, we can go there if we need to. For now, we'll just talk about denotation of the term 'god' (which I will use interchangeably with 'God' and 'gods' from here on out for simplicity). The word 'god' has multiple meanings, and they aren't interchangeable. It's what we call a 'polysemic' word. Richard Dawkins is discussing one specific meaning, and you've cited a different meaning that is incompatible. The definition that you've proposed for 'god' is a perfectly acceptable use of the word, but it's not what is being denoted by Dawkins, or any theist who argues with him. When these people say 'god' - they literally mean one (or more) supreme being(s). They are talking about an actual-in-fact divine being of the universe, which is different than someone or something that is merely worshiped or followed as such. I hope that resolves the issue and that you can go on to debate Dawkins or theists, as you see fit!
Science has proven that are at least 100 trillion Gods.

I don't' get all this fuss about no Gods not existing. Science has proven the existence of Gods over and over again. Richard Dawkins does not seem to know what he is talking about. What is he babbling about that God doesn't exist? As you can see the sun is seen as a God [0] and there are lots and lots of stars, also known as Gods. [1] I don't get it, why would people doubt the existence of the stars? We couldn't see without them, there wouldn't be any heat. Definition of God. "4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god." [2] 0. http://www.dictionary.com... 1. http://www.universetoday.com... 2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Science has proven that are at least 100 trillion Gods.

I'm happy to explain why that doesn't work. I'll give you an intuitive explanation first, then just use a simple proof by contradiction to prove it. Believing that something is true does not make it true. Why? Consider the case where your belief is incorrect. We know that it's possible for beliefs to be incorrect, because a belief is a state of mind about the truth of something. Assume that believing something is true makes it true. Many people believe that Mexico's Independence Day is Cinco De Mayo (May 5). Their actual Independence Day is September 16. If believing in something makes it true, then Mexico's Independence Day is May 5th (by belief), and it's September 16th (by fact). However, these are different days. We've arrived at a contradiction, so the premise must be rejected. Therefore, believing something is true does not make it true. Here's another fun one. Assume that believing something is true makes it true. Some people believe that the Apollo program was a conspiracy and the moon landings were faked. Therefore, the Apollo program was a conspiracy and the moon landings were faked. However, other people believe that the Apollo program was not a conspiracy and the moon landings were not faked. Therefore, the Apollo program was both a conspiracy and not a conspiracy, and the moon landings were both faked, and not faked. This is a contradiction, so we have to reject the premise. Therefore, believing something is true does not make it true. I hope that helps!
Schools

School, in this time, is bad. It squanders kids attitude towards themselves, it disengages them from learning and causes them to be disinterested, it weeds out the goody-two-shoes and overlooks real intelligence and talent, it causes students to become uniform and judge themselves by one measure (a bad one at that) and thus makes people feel inadequate. Also it encourages bullying, opposes individuality, and squanders the talents of children whom may, or may not, even know they have. 'if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will think its a failure its whole life'
Germany Should Not Have Invaded Belgium in WW1

This debate will be about whether or not the Schlieffen as originally created or as implemented by Moltke the Younger was the correct strategic move for germany to make at the start of WW1. I will argue that it was not the soundest move and that Germany should held it's border and committed most of it's forces against Russia in the east. When analyzing the plan and it's merits both neither side may use historical events that were not direct outcomes of the plan.
Student Discipline in the Classroom

First, of we need to think about if the parent would approve of such behavior by the staff of the school. What if the parent really doesn't approve of the parent disciplining their child and the parent doesn't discipline their child at home most likely. I think it would be very reasonable for a warning, another warning, and then they should leave to go to the discipline office. I am wondering what my opponent thinks about the whole problem and what would they do about the situation.
Student Discipline in the Classroom

I think disruptive students should first get a warning before they first automatically leave. It really depends on what they are doing to be honest. If it is something like throwing something at the teacher, everyone in the staff should make sure the child doesn't have a mental problem or something they can not control. If the child is making everyone laugh when it is quiet maybe you could also put the comedy into a learning activity so that everyone is interested and into what the teacher is teaching.