BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Non-existence of God

That's because they're all dead, it's like saying the French Revolution never happened because all those witnesses are dead now. But I still need to prove there were 3 million witnesses, so let's put it this way. If Moses gave the Jews the Torah without them witnessing it, they wouldn't accept it. Think of it, if there were a guy, and he told a large group o ~3 million people that they were enslaved in Japan, and he brought them out, and he parted the Bearing Straight, and migrated them into Mexico, then they fought giants and whatnot, they would say "but Moses, maybe you aren't feeling right, we never lived in Japan, and you never parted the Bearing Straight, and we never saw G-d give you that book!" That way, Judaism would never have started to begin with.
the world will not end in the year 2012

Hello, I am making a debate on why the world will not end in 2010. I thank my opponent whoever he/she is. I would like to state the fact that the Mayans predicted the world would end in 2012 because the calendar ended. but let me also state the fact that the Mayan calendar ended like every hundred years so did it happen? No, so the world will not end in 2012. Also people predicted the world would end in the year 2000 but we are still here so they were wrong. So that rules out people guessing when the world ends.
the world will not end in the year 2012

My opponent forfeited this round so I will add more points to the debate. I will keep doing on what I did in round 2. 1. Changes in the Sun's magnetic field will lead to powerful flares. So what else is new under the sun? The sun goes though a well-documented 11-year sunspot cycle that is driven by its magnetic field entangling, reforming and flipping polarity. Yes, the peak of the next cycle is in 2012 (or 2013), and some predictions suggest it might be 30 to 50 percent stronger than the last peak. But experts say it will certainly not be the biggest peak ever recorded. The bottom line is that no dragon's breath of flame will stretch across 100 million miles of space and blowtorch Earth. The largest solar flare recorded to date, on Nov. 4, 2003, spewed several billions of tons of plasma in Earth's direction. The flare's X-ray radiation that impacted our protective atmosphere had the equivalent radiation of 5,000 suns. We're still here. 2. The rogue planet Nibiru will swing by Earth. There isn't such a planet any more than the planet Naboo from the Star Wars trilogy is real. Purported Internet pictures of the interloper are photographic lens flares or hoaxes. Don't believe every dot you see photographed in the sky. 3.Supernovae or hypernovae will irradiate Earth. There are no stars that are so close to Earth that radiation from their supernova demise would seriously affect us. The nearest candidate, the red giant Betelgeuse, is predicted to explode in the next 1,000 years. The monster star Eta Carinae is also on a short fuse. Neither doomed star has a spin axis precisely aimed at Earth, so we don't have to worry about being fried by a narrow beam of gamma rays ejected from the core's implosion. In fact the kinds of stars that shoot out these Death Star beams are uncommon in the Milky Way. Earth has a one percent chance of getting zapped over 10 billion years. Scratch gamma ray bursts off of your homeowner's insurance policy. Thank you. I wait for my opponent to write something that will help him in his side of the debate.
the world will not end in the year 2012

These are some scenarios of 2012 and below how it will not happen. 1.A grand alignment of Jupiter and Saturn will gravitationally perturb Earth For the past several decades there have been doomsday claims that the combined gravity from grand planetary alignments will cause geologic and meteorological upheavals on Earth. None are scheduled for 2012. In 1962 an extremely rare grand conjunction of the classical naked-eye planets drove astrologers crazy. The conjunction happened on Feb. 4-5 and was accompanied by a solar eclipse! The most infamous grand conjunction was in 1982 and popularized in a book called "The Jupiter Effect," which predicted earthquakes and massive tides. Life went on as usual both years. The moon has a vastly greater gravitational influence on Earth than Jupiter. It's called location, location, location! At a whopping distance of 400 million miles from Earth, Jupiter's tug is pretty wimpy. 2. The black hole in the galactic center will affect us. The Milky Way's black hole has no influence on the galactic disk. The black hole is three million solar masses. The Milky Way is several trillion solar masses when we add the tug of dark matter. Any gravitational influence of the black hole over the galaxy would be like the tail wagging the dog. The Milky Way's collision with the Andromeda galaxy will dump gas into the black hole and it will blaze as a quasar. But that's several billion years away. 3. An asteroid will smash into Earth. A threatening near-Earth asteroid that's gotten the most press is the 900-foot wide Apophis. But its chances of collision have been downgraded to 1 in 250,000 at its next close approach in 2029. In theory, an uncharted asteroid or comet could come out of the blue tomorrow. But if we don't know about it today, the Mayans certainly didn't know about it 1,200 years ago. Earth-killer impacts are tens of millions of years apart. So there's no reason to be a doomsday clock-watcher. So you see, the world will not end in 2012 by some asteroid suddenly appearing or us being pulled in by a black hole. I wait for my opponents argument.
The Government Should Eliminate the Minimum Wage

This is the final debate in the DDO Olympics government and politics bracket. If you have any questions about the debate format below, mention them before you accept this debate.Full ResolutionThe government should eliminate the minimum wage.The BoP lies on both debaters (I have to prove that this change in policy is good, while my opponent has to argue for the good of said policy; I'll give the voters some leeway here).DefinitionsEliminate: "To leave out or omit from consideration; reject."[1]Minimum Wage: "The minimum amount of compensation an employee must receive for performing labor. Minimum wages are typically established by contract or legislation by the government. As such, it is illegal to pay an employee less than the minimum wage."[2]Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate.5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument.Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources[1]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2]: http://www.investopedia.com...
America should stop accepting immigrants for a few years.

Cultures are developed using multiple outlets. For example my culture was developed over time stemming from multi-cultures. It's called the melting-pot and it only works if there is a pause on immigration. America used to understand that up and until around the 1960s when they seem put profits over morality. A society's morality and law is a side effect of it's culture. In mexico the legal age of consent is 12 years old. For me this is wrong because my culture helps determine that moral belief. It has gotten to a point where people are not integrating and they live in their own slice of pie not needing to learn English. Yes, Even language is important because without proper communication it requires more resources to teach children. To the point you were trying to make, YES my culture is better! I am a Culturist. If you think something is wrong with that i'd say there is something wrong with you. We are America, So when we do take in people from other countries we should be picky about it. Unlike our European immigrants that built this nation, the people coming here are coming to steal this nation and tear it apart. They all want to change it versus becoming American. Our language and culture is becoming more diluted. Immigration hurts American workers especially BLACK PEOPLE who happen to be labor workers. You see America first as some villainous racist statement and its not. At most it's tribal. The whole idea that it doesn"t matter whether we bring in large numbers of uneducated people from socialistic countries with backward cultures where they don"t speak English or large numbers of highly educated people from capitalistic countries with Western cultures that speak English makes no sense. Yes, there are always exceptions to the rule, but unquestionably members of one group are much more likely to fit in, assimilate and add to the tax base than the other group. Worse yet, America"s immigration system is family-based instead of merit-based. How does it make America better for us to favor someone"s uneducated Grandpa from a Third World nation over a rocket scientist in his late twenties from Israel or Australia just because Grandpa has a relative in the United States?
America should stop accepting immigrants for a few years.

You've broadened the debate somewhat here so I'll only deal with points about the culture question. Race - You haven't said whether you would like to preserve the racial makeup of your culture so this is just a statement and not an argument against anything you've said. Anybody who seeks to preserve the racial makeup of their culture will not be developing/protecting it, but will achieve something along the lines of Nazi culture. I don't think anymore needs to be said about that. Language - I do agree that America should have a national language, and that language should be the one it was built on. English. However, the founding principle of America was one based on Individual Rights. So you can't force someone to speak English or stop them from speaking Spanish. However, what happens in a truly free country and what has happened throughout history, is that immigrants, out of sheer practical necessity, have eventually learned to speak English. Any immigrant who wants to make the best possible life for themselves will need to learn English as it makes them more competitive in a free market place. However, one of the main obstacles to this is the Welfare State. This substantially reduces the need for someone to compete. If you are concerned about the language issue, I suggest you oppose welfare programs and welcome immigrants. Lifestyle Preferences - This relates to your founding principle of the right to pursue your own happiness. i.e. The right to seek your own values whilst respecting the rights of others to seek theirs. Including immigrants. The only culture to which anyone can have a right is a culture of respect for and protection of individual rights. Fortunately for those who love and want to preserve American culture, the principle of individual rights is the basic principle of that culture; respect for that principle is an essential characteristic of a true American; and foreigners who immigrate to America, for the most part, embody that characteristic.
It takes more bravery to tell a highly inconvenient truth than a highly risky lie.

Evidence is allowed.Pro must propose their case in first round.This is not an 'acceptance is first' round and doing so will be equated to a forfeit as I will be left with nothing to rebut/refute.Bravery will not be defined but instead referred to by its synonyms: intrepidity, fearlessness, boldness, daring, prowess, heroism, pluck, spirit, audacity, nerve, mettle, spunk.
"Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA

Thank you for agreeing to the debate. ===We need to keep in mind the real choices before us=== Many people think that the climate choices are: A) fix the climate, Or B) head straight for the CATASTROPHE. In contrast, This CNN article (1) describes the real choices: B) best case, Hit the CATASTROPHE in 2100, Or C) real case, Hit the CATASTROPHE some few years later (can anyone tell me how long the delay will be? ) ===Let's review how the three options stack up=== If option A were really possible, Then maybe the USA could rationalize putting a lot of resources on it today. But since a slight delay in 80 years is all we can possibly achieve, The priority of necessity plummets. If we go ahead with option B, We will certainly need to spend resources on the CATASTROPHE. But, It will be to deal with the incremental consequences as they come (let"s call these incremental costs "P"). If we go ahead with option C, We will spend a lot of time and money to slightly delay the CATASTROPHE (let"s call these up front costs "Q"). Nevertheless, Once the delay expires, We will still have to spend the P costs. ===Now, I will conclude my Argument #1=== Every penny of the up front costs Q will be wasted. By definition, Q + P > P. Therefore, I recommend that we not spend Q. Source (1) links not working. The CNN article is called "Earth to warm 2 degrees Celsius by the end of this century, Studies say" with a dateline of July 31, 2017
"Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA

Climate technically is a big problem. Flooding would be an instant problem, And I know the solution for that is gonna be "They can build walls and stuff" BUT USA is already in debt and needs to repay countries, And to do something like that would take billions of dollars. Plus flooding could cause another problem. Power. "Oh no but we can just add more solar pannels" Yeahhhh. . . But then money. Plus overpopulation is gonna be a big problem and with less land means less homes for people. I'll state my argument here for now and see what you have to say
"Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA

===== Begin DISCLAIMER ===== This is a Politics debate. I have no interest in debating the science of climate change. I find it tedious. I am also hesitant to debate any of the science involved. Therefore, ---1) I acknowledge "the science of the problem" without reservation: global climate change exists, Is man-made, And is leading to a CATASTROPHE ---2) If a reputable source makes (or reports on) a scientific claim, I will accept it as accurate ===== End DISCLAIMER ===== When you accept the debate, Please include a description of your understanding of the impending catastrophe arising from the globe's current warming trajectory. I will try to use your description as the authoritative CATASTROPHE throughout the debate. It is important to know how bad a problem is when determining the political response to it. In Round 2, I will try my first argument that the CATASTROPHE [per your description] allows for the US political response to be putting it at the bottom of our priority list. In each of the remaining rounds, I will make an additional argument to support my thesis. In all rounds, Please do your best to rebut my arguments.
Spreading atheism brings more benefit to an individual or to a society than not spreading it.

Ladies & Gents, I thank you all for reading both my side and Con's side of the argument. Although i cannot speak much for Con but i am at least sure that we both hoped the audience enjoyed the debate and provide us with constructive criticisms as this happens to be both our very first debate here :) The debate has ended as the both of us had 3 turns each. Part of this is due to me not paying full attention to the rules (instead of round 1 acceptance only, i jumped right straight into arguing. Sorry, I was too excited lol.) On a personal note, I truly appreciate Con's argument very much but personally I still strongly believe that the spread of Atheism is highly important. Please note : None of the information above should be taken into consideration when judging. Thank you and have a nice day :)
Spreading atheism brings more benefit to an individual or to a society than not spreading it.

Hi, This my very first debate. This topic was something me & my friend had, so we try to bring it here. R1 : Acceptance R2: Main arguments. Rebuttals from Pro R3: Rebuttals R4: Conclusion Statements which are agreed before debate: 1) Atheism may or may not be true. 2) There is no afterlife. Example: benefits of getting into heaven cannot be proposed. Only the benefits we can receive in this life can be argued here.
I'm Pro-Life, change my mind!

Wow! I am really impressed with your knowledge of the subject! So, I'm sure you've heard this argument before: So would it be ok to kill a comma patient or any other unconscious individual. They are unconscious and can not feel. I found it interesting that you agree that life starts at conception. So to end that life would be what? Murder. (?) By definition the intentional ending of an individual's life is murder. As for your second paragraph, VERY few pregnancies threaten the mother's life and with modern medical technology the death rate is greatly lowered. However, I would prefer option 1 BECAUSE... any mother should put their child's life ahead of their own. (I'm not trying to offend or condemn anyone). I just can't see how any mother would end their child's life to protect their own. Plus, if a pregnancy could jeporadize your life (in most cases you would know before becoming pregnant) then just have protected sex. Sorry as of current I do not have time to read your websites :)
I'm Pro-Life, change my mind!

I would agree that life starts at conception, or possibly even earlier. However, this living human is not conscious until around 5 months after birth [1]. Additionally, the parietal lobe and brain stem, which are involved in pain perception [2], develop later on in pregnancy. Also, if something is found wrong with the pregnancy that will cause the mother to die in childbirth, then the mother should be allowed to save herself. In this case, there are two main situations. 1: The mother dies and the baby grows up with only one parent. 2: The child dies and the mother survives. I will elaborate more in my next response, but due to the 1000 character limit imposed by this website, I would be cut short trying to. [1] http://www.sciencemag.org... [2] https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org...
I'm Pro-Life, change my mind!

Me too! So my opinion on the matter is that life starts at conception. At what point do you believe life starts? Also, regardless of when exactly life begins the fetus would still have the potential of a life and who are we to take away the baby's chance at a life? There are other options besides aborting that life (or potential life). Pregnancies aren't easy and I get that but 99% of these women slept around, got pregnant, and don't want to have to deal with the consequences. So let's put aside rape for a second, should those women get to dictate when life begins and when it should end? If no one is 100% sure when life starts, why push it? Why even chance the taking of a life. Fun (not really fun, but interesting) fact: if you kill a pregnant woman it counts at two accounts of murder (no matter how far along they are). Now some may say, that's different, the family wanted the baby. Well is when someone is wanted when their life begins? No. I'm excited to hear your thoughts. :)
Should Financial abortion

This debate is about if Financial abortion should be legal or not. I'm will argue that it should and my opponent should argue that it shouldn't. If you don't know financial abortion is the idea that a father should be able to opt out of being a parent before the baby is born. So before a certain point in the pregnancy the father can choose to opt out of any responsibility for the child. So no child support essentially. In exchange he gives up all rights of a father visitation, tax benefits, any right to be involved in the kids life and it's irreversible. My main reason for being is favor of this is equality. Women have many options to get out of being a parent. ( Plan B, Abortion, giving the kid up for adoption etc.) I think men should also have a right to not have to be a parent if they choose the same as women.
DDOlympic: Abortion should be illegal

"Then my opponent says that it includes unborn children, and this is false. My opponent, suprisinly doesn't work hard on his arguments, and doesn't say *anything* about the fetus in the debate only just say that it is a human, and gives a bare assertion for this. I showed many reasons and evidence about the 7 things needed for living, and if the fetus is living or not, and I have shown that the fetus is not a living being."I explained why your argument is wrong in my first rebuttal. Saying I have no evidence is not only a bare assertion, but you would know that it's obviously false if you actually read my rebuttal. I explained why it's misleading to use the 7 requirements on a fetus. They are meant to be used for various species in general, and humans meet the requirements, so they are living in every stage of development. As long as a human is developing, it is living, so a fetus is living."That is why we should legalize abortion, so it is an beneficial arugment for me, and a concession from my opponent's side."No it's not. I admitted that a fetus causes harm to the mother, but I explained why that does not justify killing."P1: My opponent can talk about a non-abortionP2: My opponent can talk about an illegal abortionP3: My opponent can talk about a safe abortionC1: P1 is my side, so my opponent won't talk about it. P2 also. So my opponent must talk about P3.C2: My opponent's argument is a bare assertion, and falseC3: As my opponent's argument is failed in all ways, vote for CON."What kind of logic is that? I have and will talk about P2, P1 and P2 are not just your side, and C2 does not logically follow from the premises."My opponent says that the women is responsible for creating the child. First of all, as in my teenager argument, the teenagers for example [1] don't even know that they were getting a baby. It's not *their* fault to create the "baby". Many more of these situations will come, the evidence was only from teenagers, but logically, there will be more counting non-teenagers."I don't think you understand how getting a baby works. I'm not going to explain in detail, but it involves a consensual act between two people. People who do that don't know that they're getting a baby, but they're aware that it's a risk. Therefore, it's their fault if they get a baby, and getting an abortion would be like inviting someone to your house, locking them inside, and then killing them because you don't want them there. It violates an individual's right to life, so it should be illegal according to our framework."My opponent thinks it is a big deal when a non-living fetus dies, but not a living mother."The mother isn't going to die from the fetus. I don't know where you get that idea, but with modern medicine, that shouldn't be a problem. A living fetus has the right to life, so killing it because it unintentionally caused harm is not justified.In conclusion, I have explained that the right to life applies to every human being, including fetuses, that killing a fetus is not justified and should be illegal according to a libertarian framework, and that my opponent has not proven or disproven anything.