BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God doesn't like gay marriage.

Thanks for the debate, let's have fun! Basically, my opponent fails to recognize his Burdon of proof. To win, my opponent must establish that (a) there is a god, with scientific studies (b) all sources he uses are directly from god. (not inspired by him, he must have written it himself) (c) That god has gone to the public and announced that he doesn't like gays being married. This debate is won by me, because there are no documentations of god, or what his likes and dislikes are. If muy opponent asserts that the bible is the true word of god, then he must prove it Also, his sources do not say that they cannot marry. They just can't have sex. therefore, I win Now, he asserts the bible verses. I'm going to let you in on a little secret. there is a label on the back of the bible that reads: WARNING DO NOT TAKE THIS BOOK LITERALLY. jk but seriously let me give you some other verses that "should be followed" Now I've been told that 4/5ths of all households have a bible. so this should be very easy for alot of you. I encourage you to look it up. otherwise, You'll think I'm lying. "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. " exodus 21 7. I wonder how much I can get one for? "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD. " leviticus 19:28 I wonder if god really disaproves of tatoos. even the cross ones? "And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he [is] unclean to you" leviticus 11:7 Does that mean alot of the old football players are damned now? And does god not like it that I had ribs last monday? " 9These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. 10And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. 12Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. " Leviticus 9-12 So God doesn't like me because I ate at red lobster? "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. "
God doesn't like gay marriage.

I argue that the Christian God is against the acceptance of gay marriage, albeit still loving gay individuals. My main reason for believing this is that God mentions his abhorrence of homosexual behavior numerous times in the Bible, both in the Old and New Testaments. Most famously, Leviticus 18:22, according the New Living Translation, "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin" [1]. Again, in Romans 1:12, "And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved" [2]. If he indeed dislikes homosexuality so, he would feel a similar distaste for gays marrying, especially since marriage has largely been based from religious grounds - as noted in Genesis 2: 18, 21-24 [3]. I look forward to anyone who accepts my first debate here. :) Sources: [1]: http://www.religioustolerance.org... [2]http://www.biblegateway.com... [3]: http://www.biblegateway.com...
Abolish The Private Education System

It seems like my opponent is saying that 7% of the population get a great education by attending private school. He is advocating for abolishing private school so instead of 7% getting a great education, 0% get a great education. I'll be arguing for complete privatization of school, so that instead of my opponent's plan to take great education from 7% of the population to 0% of the population, my plan will be to take it from 7% to 100%.
Abolish The Private Education System

Private education is causing a great split in our society between rich and poor. The two-tier system is disabling social mobility and is a major cause of socio-economic inequality. As the political director for the Huffington Post, Mehdi Hasan, says, "It should be a national scandal that private schools educate only 7% of the school population yet former pupils of private schools dominate the upper echelons of British society and public life: the City, the media, the courts, the civil service, the arts." Statistically, there is every reason to abolish the divisive private education system.
rap battle

Everybody here will vote for me,I've got the better conduct and spelling,your insults are just words, they don't do any harm,and your claims are wild tales and false alarms.I bet you think you're really good at this,but you aren't 'cuz you got bad taste in rhyme,and your rhythm is bad, it's gross like slime,and I don't care about your bliss,as it breaks the laws and gets you arrested, you'll get stuck in jail, wide-awake with fear,meanwhile, everyday I'm well-rested, with an awesome carreer, so don't even try thinking 'bout challengin' me,he's raps as you eat, drink and breathe,and next time you do a battle like this,don't forfeit, you'll lose badly with even one round amiss.Vote Con!!!
rap battle

you try to say your good but thats were your misunderstood i am the rapper to defy the law set in stone in fact i think that im gonna go break some bones you talk for such a little man you be sittin on steet corner kickin your can i will rip up your world your ganna get wirled and twirled and unfurled i can do this all day your the one that wanted to come out and pla play you shouldnt mess with a bull youll get the horn i am so good when we are done youll feel reborn so go back to other debate your out of date
rap battle

It's the gentlemen that always win,with good arguments and nice conduct,your terrible beat-ups of innocent binswill make you seem crazy and surely f*ck'd, Your grammar is horrible, it's true,for one, you're not capitalizing "I" in your rap,and your rhymes are so bad your whole argument's blew--if you recited it, nobody would clap,they'd all boo you and throw you tomatoes,laugh at you when your run off like a baby,and then you'll seem weaker than a small potato,plus, you'll never get past the acceptance test in the navy. Why you won't be able to spell your name,like your final verse, you'll go insane!So everybody vote for me,as I am the best rapper here, don't you all agree?
rap battle

im not a sweet stud im a street thug thats quick to beat a nigga like a cheap rug til he leak blood you sure soft watched you fall off might slide your whore off then tear your jaw off my life is far out i got star clout every week bring a different car out go to clubs and buy the bar out you aint a player put that cigar out take that suit off before i shoot off and tear your roof off leave your clothes bloody red like the nose of rudolph i rock many stages and never been booed off I might let this gat burst put you in that big black hearse for that whack verse you shoulda tried these other cats first
2016 presidential election GOD SHOULD BE PRESIDENT!

lol atmas we might wait forever. Its funny how politicians use their religions as a basis for their morals but explain nothing of their own personal morals. We are at a time where nowhere cares and we need to all take personal interest in our own personal government and the mass morals of us as a nation. BTW you didnt rebuttal me godisreal. I think your proving your point like Steven Colbert but gimme a decent rebuttal.
2016 presidential election GOD SHOULD BE PRESIDENT!

No no no no no no no no no elect Satan master of all puny earthlings to reign fire and despair upon your slutty ex girlfriends and that sh*thead boss of yours whose testicles you would like to see explode and those douchebags in dance clubs who all wear the same tank tops will be impaled by Satan's trifork. Santan promises to "bring hel on earth to get the hel off"
2016 presidential election GOD SHOULD BE PRESIDENT!

If god is a god then god is a god therefore god, being the awesome god he is, is a omnipotent, and omnipresent god. So god will fly to earth because hes god and he will use hes awesome holy jetpacks, AND BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF USA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YES! NO MORE FLESH AND BLOOD RULING PEOPLE! GOD WILL BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF USA! BECAUSE GOD IS A GOD WITH ONE GOD WITH GOD BEING AWESOME HE WILL BE THE NEXT GOD OF USA WHO IS ALSO A PRESIDENT THEREFORE HE IS A PRESIDENTIAL GOD!
What northwest state is better? Washington = pro, Oregon = con

Sorry my internet froze at the last moment so I couldnt sumbit my rebuttal If you want to see how scenic Oregon is look at this website for proof http://www.planetware.com... http://travelaway.me... While yes washington has no income tax , Oregon income tax actully give you benifits like a College saving plan which some of your tax money helps you pay for college In addition to biking Oregon is an amazing running state to evidence by olympic trials held there every time Also its college UO has a reputation for being one of the best business schools in the northwest, as it founded Nike and it s marketing program is ranked one of the best in the nation You talk about great buisnesses, Oregon has the world Nike headquarters , and the US Adidas headquarters In colleges Oregon has one of the best private schools in the Northwest in Reed which is much harder to get in then UW and gets you in great grad schools Finally Oregon is a much cheaper place to live then Washington
What northwest state is better? Washington = pro, Oregon = con

I don't know why you didn't post last round, but I will continue nonetheless. What makes a state "better" is its livability. Washington has a superior livability because first of all, it has more job opportunities due to the presence of large corporations such as Microsoft, amazon, and Boeing. Moreover, Washington is a generally safe state with low crime and calm neighborhoods. It also has an extremely large amount of tourist attractions, from Pike Place Market's stalls, to the majestic hills of Mount Rainer, Washington has it all. As a resident of over ten yesrs, I have found what Washington truly has to offer and have been able to enjoy its many amenities. Thanks for this debate.
What northwest state is better? Washington = pro, Oregon = con

Thank you for your response. Let's put your points under the microscope and see what we can find. First, you said that Oregon is an extremely beautiful state. Although I can not deny this I don't see how this can be used in this argument because the two states have essentially the same "land to work with." Moreover, you say that Oregon is better because there is no sales tax. Although Washington does have sales tax, it rebalances the scales with income tax, so this argument is refutable as well. Lastly, you say that Oregon is a more bike friendly state, although it is very bike friendly, SO IS WASHINGTON! Please tell me something that makes it stand out over Washington. Thanks
What northwest state is better? Washington = pro, Oregon = con

I sincerely believe that Washington is a superior state. Without even getting in to things such as natural beauty, Washington's position in the US gives a big boost to its economy and thus the quality of its cities. Seattle is becoming one of the most important cities in the techinal world, with thousands of youngsters flocking and bringing culture with them. The rich pnw culture, although shared with Oregon, is on fully display in Washington's brilliant land.
The USA should adopt English AND Spanish as the official languages.

Please use more than personal opinion in your arguments. Do not use Wikipedia for a source, but instead, go to the bottom of the Wikipedia page, find the source, and cite the original website that the information was on. If you cannot find the source, then the Wikipedia information is not trustworthy. Outline: Round 1: Acceptance Round. Round 2: Introduce arguments and try to defend them with logic and sources. Things like demographics and general opinion of Americans (polls) are great sources. Round 3: Debate the arguments stated in round 2 by your opponent.
The USA should adopt English AND Spanish as the official languages.

My opponent says that the official language does not mean only language and that people would still be able to live here if they speak Chinese only. This is actually false. "Official language" means that the government will only conduct business in that language, which deprives non-Spanish and non-English speaking citizens of their rights. Those citizens will not be able to have their languages used in government business and thus will not be able to receive governmental services. Living here is not enough. He says that the government could possibly use Xhosa. Actually, no they cannot exclusively use Xhosa becuase then they would be establishing it as their official language and my advocacy is that we should not have any official language, be it English, Spanish, Italian, or Xhosa. He also drops the arguments about how this "harm" is empirically denied and the fact the existence of our democracy and a bipartisan state will prevent the government from doing this without severe repurcussion from voters. We already have checks in place to prevent this abuse, so there is no reason to counter it with a new policy that creates more harm in the process of preventng something that already cannot happen. He then says that all polls are biased, including the presidential polls. The presidential polls, however, may be a little biased, but this is accounted for by the margin of error they present. His poll has no margin of error and is only restricted to people who read that particular article on the particular website (CNN.com). The presidential polls have as much of a random sample as possible and attempt to reduce bias as much as possble, while his poll basically makes every effort to be biased. This poll would not be accepted by any statisitician.He next says that the government should do anything with mass support that is not immoral. He is now changing his argument; before he said that the government should do it because people want it. Now, remember that he gave you no credible evidence that people want it, and even if they do want it, it is still immoral because it deprives some citizens, as I noted before, of access to government services. Also, this is a republic and not a democracy, so even if a popular policy is not immoral, the government cannot do it if it is not permitted by the Constitutions. The Constitution does not give the government the power to establish an official language, so his argument is still wrong.
The USA should adopt English AND Spanish as the official languages.

I must make one thing clear for you. Official language does not mean only language. People would still be able to live and work here if they speak Chinese only. Also, you misunderstood what I said about Xhosa. Few Americans speak it, and without an official language, the government could speak in Xhosa instead of English at government situations (like speeches, meetings, and writing of laws) if they so desired in order to keep their activity secret. It is unlikely, but possible. Also, making a language official does not discriminate other peoples. There are no problems in Spain even though some people there don't speak Spanish. Not everyone in Russia speaks fluent Russian, but that doesn't matter, as they can still find jobs. I have no idea where you are coming from, but just because you don't speak an official language doesn't mean you can't vote. You are turning this official language debate into an official nationality debate. Also, all polls and will have the problem of only interviewing a certain group of people, and all demographics will have the possibility that someone lied on a census. The presidential polls only have info from people willing to answer those annoying calls or go to polling sites, but they are still accepted. And you have to understand, there are some issues that should be granted upon due to mass support, and some which should not. If the vast majority of America wanted you dead, the government should act upon that as it is immoral (even though someone would probably murder you before the government got involved). If the vast majority of Americans want to change the flag, that should be done by the government as there are no moral problems involved.
The USA should adopt English AND Spanish as the official languages.

Let us be clear about one thing: America is not a European nation. The reason that there is no official language is that the government is not promoting any one culture over another and is not favoring any one group over another. Not all citizens speak English or Spanish; some areas are densely populated by Indians, African immigrants, Asian immigrants, etc. These individuals require access to governmental services and have the right to vote, and shutting down these services is unfair to these individuals. My opponent's only argument is that the government could conduct its services in Xhosa/Obama could use a language nobody speaks. This is wrong for a few reasons. First, the status quo forces the state to provide services in a variety of languages so that it can best provide outreach to its people. In addition to Xhosa, the state provides services in English, Hindi, Chinese, and Spanish. Obama will never restrict himself to a random language that nobody speaks because then he would be endorsing a specific language, which is against the policies of the United States. Second, the harms that he presents are entirely imaginary. Despite the fact that we do not have an official language, governmental services are still offered in English. Obama gives his speeches in English, for example. The harms that he is claiming do not exist in modern society. Third, there are informal checks to this abuse, such as the existence of a democratic process. If the president ever attempted to pull such shenanigans, he would become so vastly unpopular that he would likely lose all support. In fact, the existence of a multi-party state checks this as well since the opposition would be see to not only highlight this abuse, but it would also be sure to translate the policies and speeches into English. He next tells you that 63% of Americans want English to be the official language. This is emphatically false. The evidence that he provided you with is an online poll that is plagued by response bias insofar as only people who are interested in the issue and only those who visit CNN.com would be able to or bother to respond. Real statisticians would reject his poll and label it fake. In addition, even if the majority of Americans did support it, that does not mean it should become law or that it is true. If the majority of Americans supported killing me for no reason, that does not mean the government should do it. This is a republic and not a mobocracy.
The USA should adopt English AND Spanish as the official languages.

I believe that English and Spanish should become official language in the USA. Let's start off with some numbers. ~93% of Americans speak English or Spanish at home (http://www.censusscope.org...). Currently there is no official language. If the president wanted to, he could give all his speeches in Xhosa and then very few Americans would understand him. According to polls, ~67% of Americans think English should become official (http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com...). Due to the increasing number of Spanish-speaking people in America who do not speak English fluently, it would only make sense to include their language in as official.
Bernie Sanders has a better chance of beating Donald Trump then Hillary does.

We will go by your standards, a candidate must show 3 things in order to become a significant threat to the GOP nominee. The first one is Electability. Bernie Sanders is a far left wing candidate that is actually beating Hillary Clinton in a lot of democratic polls. In the past, you usually want to be either far right or far left in the democratic polls and then near center, either left or right in the primary to steal as many votes from the republican side. Those times have changed, you want to be as far from center as possible to be able to win the presidency. Things are slowly rotating towards Bernie, what he can likely do in a way that Clinton cannot is win over genuine swing voters, crafting a true Rainbow Coalition that for the first time includes white working class voters. The second one is Favorability. When you used socialist, do you mean the American version or the literal version? Socialist try to bring equality to the nation, so I don't see how that will hurt the poor nor the middle class, it will main hurt the upper class or wealthy. The quality of healthcare can't get any worst then it is already. I'm not sure if you have noticed yet, but our economy isn't what it used to be and we are getting crushed by China and India to name a few. I'm more worried about our economy and not so much every other foreign nation, isn't that the UN's job? Foreign Policy is entrenched in big corporations with political support using the military to bully foreign nations into giving resources over to the wealthy to become richer. The third one is Experience. I agree that Hillary does have the most experience but Bernie Sanders has more than Donald Trump, and that's really all the matters. Bernie served as a congressman for 16 years in the U.S. House of Representatives and as a senator from 2007 to 2015. That is a huge amount of experience. His foreign policy is similar to those of social democratic parties in Europe, particular those instituted by the Nordic countries. I do believe the Nordic countries has the best economies in the world.
Bernie Sanders has a better chance of beating Donald Trump then Hillary does.

Thank you for the interesting thingA candidate must show 3 things in order to become a significant threat to the GOP nomineeElectibilityFavorabilityExperience1. ElectiblityHillary Clinton is a center right candidate with way higher poll numbers than Bernie Sanders in the democratic polls (1). click="document.location='/Reformist/photos/album/5791/39437/'" src="../../../photos/albums/1/6/5791/332567-5791-yqdsf-a.jpg" alt="" /> My opponent may bring up that polls vs donald trump, Bernie Sanders is winning. While this is true it forgets one key factor. The moderates. Thats right the key polls showing the results are leaving out the moderates. Now the moderate view on Bernie Sanders is overall negative and would they would rather support a center right nationalist than a socialist2. FavorabilityBernie Sanders, like ive stated previously, is a socilaist. While he has not had scandals his economic policy and especially his weak foreign policy has been scrutinzed from all spectrums of the political compass, from moderates to democrats to republicans. His economic policy hurts the middle class and especially the poor (2). Quality of healthcare will also fall drasitcally thanks to government interfernce. Do you really think people will support bernie sanders after they start hearing these attacks, especially when Donald Trump is heading the smear campaign? Nope3. ExperienceHillary Clinton has served in politcs since 1974 (3). While Sanders has more years he simply lacks the experience in foreign policy and this will hurt him in the long run aginst Donald J Trump. Hes foreign policy experience nothing compared to the years put in to the State Department by Hillary ClintonDonald Trump or any republican nominee will destroy Bernie because of these simple truths.Sources:(1): http://bud-meyers.blogspot.com...(2): https://www.washingtonpost.com...(3): http://www.hillaryclintonquarterly.com...