BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The words "Under God" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.

The words "Under God" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.Round 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - ArgumentsRound 3 - RebuttalsOpponent must accept these conditions.-No usage of wikipedia as a source.-Pro must prove why it is rational to remove the words "Under God" from the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance.-Con must prove why it is irrational to remove the words "Under God" from the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance.Good luck.
USFG should disband the Federal Reserve and the gold standard put in it's place.

1. 2. No semantics, if its unclear don't debate. The concept, though, should be easily understandable. 3. Honestly I'm on the fence on this topic, but I want to take the Pro, as a test of it's validity (if I can't defend it well then I probably won't believe it) 4. BOP is on me for the drastic change in status-quo 5. This debate is for Apollo.11 6.
2nd amendment

Your presentation was highly eloquent and seeping with appropriate references, though I must concur that your argumentation has failed to address several of my key points and is rather redundant to what you stated in your opening statements, but I shall do my best to rebut your assertions. "The Founding Fathers trusted an armed citizenry as the best safeguard against the possibility of a tyrannical government"- You Yes you have stated this before, that gun control is a way for tyrants to take too much control through force of their armies and constabularies and the citizens would have no defence against it. I have already showed you though that this is not a logical statement, for democratic tradition and economic stability are the main factors in this and other countries that do not share the USA values when relating to civilian armaments (such as pretty much every country in Western Europe) but there is another major logical fallacy in this argument. That is, if you believe the United States vulnerable enough to political destabilization, consider this: If the possibility of armed resistance could happen against dictators, could it not just as easily happen against democratically elected ones as well? Consider your nation's civil war in which the Federal Army was barely able to keep down the rebellions due to (partially) the wide ranging circulation of firearms and easy ability to form a militia resulted in rather negative effects for the country as a whole. Perhaps the notion of centralizing armouries in the control of government is not a bad idea after all. Than again, you point out that this too can be abused (such as in NSDAP's case) so it is logical to conclude that rather than putting your total faith in one particular gun-rights ideology it would be better to examine the political situation of the time and make restrictions or liberties accordingly. To do that though, it would have to be removed (or de facto ignored) from the constitution of the United States and made a legal decision for the current legislation. Farooq Jahan, Proud Citizen of a Country without Gun Rights or Tyrannical Aspirations
2nd amendment

Considering the illogical premises of your position, I congratulate you your exceptional organisation and research into the matter. Most of your debate is based upon the historical circumstance in which gun control was used as a tool in lessening resistance to the NSDAP dictatorship in Germany. No doubt this establishment knew that having firearms in the hands of people that may resist their rule was not a good thing, and acted likewise to preserve their rule over the people. However this was not the only way that NSDAP controlled the lives of their people. Somehow I am inclined to believe strong military, thorough censorship, suppression of opposition, and leadership popularity played more significant roles in asserting NSDAP control of Germany than controlling the civilian possession of firearms. Consider also the numerous other nations of the world that currently also severely restrict the civilian possession of firearms, specifically handguns and assault rifles such as Sweden or even the Federal German Republic. Just because on particular instance a governmental function is abused does not mean it is inherently bad. Are we to say that Goebells's usage of the airwaves is a reason to ban public radio? BBC shows no signs whatsoever of intense racial persecution. In fact the US is one of the few developed countries in which people believe it is for some reason a right of their right along with free religion and speech, to carry around expensive combat weapons without governmental restriction. Why is this? The reason for the 2nd Amendment is rooted deep in history and at the time was based on logic and national survival. Keep in mind that America's founding fathers were banding together to rebel against London but after they had achieved victory they did not have really much of a standing army. In days when America was weak and with enemies of strength (namely Britain), her states divided and volatile (hence Civil War later down the line), Natives often clashing with Appalachian settlers, and virtually no constabulary to keep the peace. As governments go, it was rather small (public employees measured in hundreds, rather than millions). No doubt it was feared that due to the current volatile political state of America at the time it was feared that gun-control would be abused. " Bearing Arms A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…" goes the Constitution of the United States. Key word being "militia". How else was a poor nation able to arm it inhabitants for a time of war or unrest than, in a way, privatise the military? But in today's America, which has a stable political climate, a strong military, and effective police force, should not this historical law be replaced by ones more appropriate to the times?
2nd amendment

"There's no question that weapons in the hands of the public have prevented acts of terror or stopped them" stated Inspector-General Shlomo Aharonisk in regards to Israel's gun control policy. And who cannot look at the facts and assume a similar position on the subject of gun control? Why would any society with an adequately supplied army and constabulary ever notion that disarming the people would not lead to the lessening of power of non-governmental forces? In countries like British North America or British India Gandhi and Jefferson shunned the idea of depriving their citizens of firearms, but you must come to realise that these were the very sorts of people who wanted to cause political destability, which was certainly the moral high ground in Gandhi's time, but considering that the United States is democratic, stable, and has the principles of liberty ingrained deep in tradition and law, should this historical solution originally designed by rebels and criminals (Founding Fathers) be reconsidered? I am by no means suggesting that the wide circulation of firearms is going become an asset in mass political destablizartion and revolution (though it has happened in American history, most notably 1960). You state that guns are needed to preserve the liberty of the people, but one must also conclude from history that it hasn't even helped father the cause of liberty, for it proved inadequate in the various slave rebellions that lit up America. Yet the sad fact remains that gun-related violent crime at the hands of mobsters and street gangs is rampant in many major American cities. Critics point out that gun control doesn't work and point to examples like Glasgow where knife-crime is rampant. Yet the liberal production of assault rifles, handguns, and other hobby guns seethes across the United States, and cities like New York that have issued restriction polices have only yielded benefits, such as a slight decline in violent. The problem created in United States even travels north across the border where Canadian officials are powerless to stop the flow of legally produced armanments that often find their way into the hands of Torontonian or Vancouverite gangs and tarnishes American image as a people of hapless rednecks that can't even control military supplies. Again in your rebuttal you visit another moot issue that you believe to be truth merely because it was written in a several hundred-year old document, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…" is no longer valid because the United States has evolved past its stage as wayside colony scared of being gobbled up its former mistress or raided from the West by Aboriginal raids. Now she is a nation among nations, a superpower more committed to the cause of democracy than most others, stable, and protected by a regular army (not had in Jefferson's day) and elite constabulary that makes criminals both home and abroad scared to attain America's wrath, but on occasion using one the very constitutional principles of arms-bearing to blacken the efforts of American law enforcement.
Does God Exist

just like my opponent did. Report this Comment Posted by Thiest_1998 4 days ago Thiest_1998 Sorry about missing the argument I will try and reply to him in the comments Yes I agree it is impossible to physically prove Gods existence but it's also Impossible to disprove his existence, it's a little bit like gravity you know it's there but you can't prove it's existence. 1. Just because you don't have pictures of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist pictures for example the laws of the universe pictures doesn't prove existence email e.g you could have documents and information about someone lived 500 year's ago but no pictures that doesn't disprove thier existence on the earth. I don't think God would have to appear to anyone I think that it only takes common sense to believe in God how did we get here if there is no God? 2.I don't know how you want me to answer that you didn't even ask me any questions. 1.I don't believe Jesus Christ is God. Jesus isn't God he is the son of God he isn't praying to himself 2.Again Jesus isn't God. 3.Where are you getting this information, where in the Bible does it say that. Creation has never been a myth nothing happens by itself if it is a myth then how did we get here show me something that happens today that happens without a cause. Noah's Ark if you want pictures of that go on Google and search Noah's Ark Mt ararat it's in Turkey Btw. The earth is approximately 6,000 year's old and where is your proof that the earth is millions of years old. If you read why God did it maybe you would change your thoughts. God doesn't hate people he hates certain actions. You need to do some research Hell is for those who reject the gospel and heaven is for those who accept it. You started rambling on then you started putting words in my mouth in contention 3 I'm not being rude but what tf are you going on about.
Information exists independently of matter and energy.

As Pro, I state that information exists as something independent of matter and energy. What I mean by this, is that matter and energy are simply the medium that convey information. Information has it's own independent existence. Con must prove that the existence of information is somehow tied to matter and energy. Four rounds. 1) Acceptance. 2) Opening arguments. 3) Rebuttals. 4) Closing arguments. No rebuttals allowed.
resolved that by 2040 the fg should mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in

These fuels are good for the economy so why not try them. They open jobs and help save the environment so why not use them. Ethanol uses the worthless parts of the corn so why not use it and save on some land instead of throwing all that excess corn away. I would use my longer debate but I cant find it right now. Pulse I have only 5 min. to type this.
The glass is half full

My stance (that the glass is always half full) is based on mathematical arguments. Argument 1 - Why the glass is half fullSince it was agreed that "full" can be represented as a whole -- or in fractional terms, 1 -- I will use this term in my mathematics. Looking at the term "half full", this can be equated in mathematics as "one-half of 1" or 1/2 x 1.1/2 x 1 = 1/2As 1/2 is 50% of the original number (which was 1), this means the glass has a 50% occupancy, supporting my Pro standpoint. Argument 2 - Why the glass is not half emptyIt was also agreed that "empty" would be represented as a 0 in mathematical terms. Now, looking at "half empty", this can be equated in mathematics as "one-half of 0" or 1/2 x 0.1/2 x 0 = 0Since 0 can be any percentile of the original number (which was also 0), this means that "half empty" does not support Con's standpoint of the glass having 50% occupancy.
The glass is half full

Hi, this is my first debate here on DDO so please excuse any informalities or confusions I may have. Burden of Proof PRO will argue that when a glass is filled with water (or another type of liquid) to 50% occupancy, the glass is always half full. CON will argue that when a glass is filled with water (or another type of liquid) to 50% occupancy, the glass is either always half empty, that it is both, or that it is subjective. Debate Structure Round 1 - Acceptance Round 2 - Arguments Round 3 - Rebuttals Round 4 - Conclusions Definitions Full - When the volume of the liquid in the glass is equal to the total volume of the glass. In other words, full can be represented as a whole, or in fractional terms, 1. Empty - When there is no liquid in the glass at all, or in fractional terms, 0. By accepting this debate, you agree to adhere to the aforementioned Burden of Proof, Debate Structure, and Definitions. Thank you in advance to whomever accepts this debate and the best of luck to them. Looking forward to a fun, clean debate!
The glass is half full

Given that my opponent has forfeited round 3, I will continue to my conclusion. Conclusion My argument not only mathematically supports the resolution that the glass is always half full, but also successfully rebuts my opponent’s argument. Due to the fact that my opponent has failed to rebut my argument, I have strong mathematical evidence that supports my standpoint in this debate, whilst my opponent’s argument has been refuted. As such, I urge a Pro vote.
The glass is half full

Rebuttal My opponent's argument is that when observing a glass filled with water to 50% occupancy, the thing we are observing that exists is water. Therefore, when looking at the terms "half full" and "half empty", you are referring to the glass being either half full or half empty of water. I bring up my mathematical argument as my rebuttal, for it is sufficient enough evidence to work for both needs. If the glass was "half full" (1/2 x 1 = 1/2), the glass WOULD be at 50% of its original occupancy. However, in contradiction to my opponent's argument, half empty (1/2 x 0 = 0) does NOT come to 50% of the original occupancy. The answer lies in the mathematical calculations of the terms themselves, and based on this math (which is one of the fundamental concepts of the universe), my opponent's argument is proved untrue. I look forward to opponent's rebuttal as we advance into the fourth and final round of this debate.
The glass is half full

As was previously agreed upon, I will save my rebuttals for the next round and reserve this one solely for presenting my own arguments. When observing the existence (or non-existence) of something, it is always a matter of fact, and not open for subjective interpretation. Something either exists, or it doesn't. In this case, the thing that exists is water. It exists enough to fill a glass to fifty percent of its occupancy. But it also doesn't exist for the other fifty percent. Water, in this observation, both exists and doesn't exist equally. Therefore, I contend that the glass is both half-full AND half-empty. If the glass was full, you would not say it was empty. If the glass was empty, you would not say it was full. But if it was almost full, you would say it was a little empty. And if it was almost empty, you would say it was a little full. But when the liquid exists perfectly in the middle, it is both half-full and half-empty. I look forward to your response.
The outcome of the Ramos and Compean case

As we all know Drug smugglers are criminals too. All criminals should be put in prison. So the drug smugglers should be in prison too. But if you think about it shooting people is worse than than doing drugs bcause drugs are a personal choice. Drug smugglers can be very mean people, at least they are on TV. Cops are really mean too. I've had experience with that! Overall i'd say that drugsmugglers should be put in prison too. but they are in mexico so they can't be catch by the us.
The outcome of the Ramos and Compean case

To give the voters a little background in the Ramos and Compean case two border patrol agents were tried for shooting a drug smuggling illegal alien as he crossed the border. They were sentenced to 11 and 10 years in prison. According to Ramos and Compean's testimony they saw the drug smuggler (as he was running from them)pull out a "shiny metal object". Thinking that the drug smuggler was pulling a gun on them they shot him in the rear. This understandably interrupted his drug smuggling and he re crossed the border back into mexico. Later they were tried by a friend of the drug smuggler who was told by his mother that the drug smuggler had been shot. Now I don't know about you but if a criminal pointed what I thought was a gun at me I would shoot him to save my own skin. Now Ramos and Compean sit behind bars while this drug runner is free.
God Exists

I just want to get this off my chest man, I hope that we all can be friends because I don't think that just because you're an atheist and I'm a Christian will stop us from being friends. Anywho I believe that the only real living proof of the existence of God, is of course the Bible, the Bible has multiple stories written by various followers and Jesus's desiples. I don't know very much about Christ yet but I hope to learn more and grow my faith. Now you might come back and say we'll there is multiple religions which have "books" about proof of a God and all that which is true but you simply must believe in Christ man. I get Christianity ain't for everyone but I hope most people change their hearts. Like said man I care for many people and I do have people I don't get along with but who doesn't? I just wish these topics shouldn't be a debate you know, it's simple as if you believe in God the then great if not then fine. I respect your beliefs man. ~Snuggle Daddy
Feminism Isn't Actually for Women's Rights.

I am glad to take this debate. Thank you for the opportunity, and good luck. Firstly, I would like to address feminism in a way which is comprehensive, so I will begin with some opening arguments. (1) Feminism was a movement launched with the intent of ending stigmas women faced. (1a) During the great depression in America, women faced harsh gender biases when attempting to find work. Women who attempted to attain employment, economic success, or even self-dependence, were often accused of thievery and stealing opportunities from their male counterparts. According to the article, "Women And The Great Depression" by Susan Ware, ""Women who sought relief or paid employment risked public scorn or worse for supposedly taking jobs and money away from more deserving men." The previous quote does in fact prove that women faced stigmas exclusive to them, and thus those stigmas gave them difficulty when trying to find employment. This therefore proves the need for feminism. (1b) Feminism has accomplished many many things for the sake of women; ranging from reducing gender pay inequities, granting women the right to the suffrage, allowing them to wear clothes, participate in the entertainment industry, and even has allowed them to serve in government positions. According to an article by the History Network, "For almost 100 years, women (and men) had been fighting to win that right [suffrage]: They had made speeches, signed petitions, marched in parades and argued over and over again that women, like men, deserved all of the rights and responsibilities of citizenship." Again, this is evidence that feminism, a movement which was initiated to advocate for the escalation of women's statuses in society to be equal to men's, does in fact benefit women. (1c) The very definition of feminism is also proof that feminism operates predominately in the interest of women who face gender stigmas, however, it does also operate in favor of both: "1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes 2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests" Sources Cited: (1a) https://www.gilderlehrman.org... (1b) http://www.history.com... (1c) http://www.merriam-webster.com... I think that this is an appropriate size/length for an opening argument, I will therefore hand the floor over to my opponent.
We can't know anything for certain

IF you say that all KNOWLEDGE IS UNCERTAIN then your knowledge of everything is uncertain, like your knowledge of all knowledge being uncertain is uncertain. You just contradicted your self by saying that all knowledge is uncertain. I can't even be certain about what I just said but I believe I'm certain, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF I AM!!!!!!!! So my point is that maybe you can be certain of ANYTHING, but at the same time it's not certain.
We can't know anything for certain

As far as your teacher goes, I would ask him the same question I asked you and that is...... You claim that we can't know anything for certain, are you certain of this ? You still haven't answered this question. Pro said "But still I know that there is not something I can think of that is a 100% true" So Pro is claiming to "know" that Pro knows that their is nothing Pro can know Pro asks me if I know anything for sure, ok....... I can know that any claim that all knowledge is uncertain is false. How do I know this you ask ? Lets see what happens if it is indeed the truth that all knowledge is uncertain and we accept this as true. 1) All knowledge is uncertain 2) Therefore any claim that any knowledge is certain MUST be false 3) If it must be false, then we can be certain that it is false Conclusion: Therefore we can be certain that knowledge is uncertain 1) All knowledge is uncertain 2) We can't be certain about premise 1 3) Therefore its possible that there is knowledge that is certain 4) No knowledge can be certain due to premise 1 Therefore: We are certain that all knowledge is uncertain The conclusions refutes the claim that "all knowledge is uncertain" In short, claiming to know that knowledge is unknowable is self refuting So I ask Pro again, You claim we can't know anything for certain , are you certain of this claim ?
We can't know anything for certain

I didn't mean to forfeit this 2 past rounds, but honestly I couldn't think of anything to answer you that would make sense to me, but no, I was not certain when I said "I can and will argue every thing you tell me to prove you can't know anything for sure." But I was hoping I could you know? In my debating club at school, my teacher actually did argue against everything I said. In class he asked us if it was possible to know something that was 100% certain or true. We tried to argue everything we thought was 100% true and he actually did, he kind of made me wonder if anything would ever be 100% certain or true. So, I'm sorry for for forfeiting the past two rounds, and I think (not sure) you won this debate. But still I know that there is not something I can think of that is a 100% true. Can you think of something that is a 100% percent true. I want an honest answer from you, do you believe that there is something that is a 100% certain or true? If you say yes, which things? And if you say no, then why did you start this debate if you didn't believe it yourself? I know sometimes in debate you have to argue for a side or topic you don't agree with, but in this one you got to choose your side, WHY?