BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Thomas Jefferson should have freed his slaves

From the Enlightenment to his death, Thomas Jefferson was a strong anti-slavery advocate. His ideals stretched towards a more united America. His ideals moved towards a less segregated country. His hopes were unrealistic. Jefferson, being submerged in his strong morals of a harmonious future, hoped that all men should be equal. That all men should be free. That all men should live in a utopia. But utopias don"t exist as we all know. Utopias are unrealistic and utopias are bias, as one man"s utopia is another man"s dystopia. As Dante Alighieri said in the Inferno: "one man"s angel is another man"s devil" Jefferson"s slave-less society would have crushed the economy; bring America into a recession far greater and far earlier than the Great Depression of the 1930"s. It is an undeniable fact that the thirteen colonies strongly depended on the slave trade to keep the country together, to act as a glue. Without the trade, money would be thin, joblessness would devour the streets and even the most generous people would be stripped of the money that they could possibly give. The North would be useless and the south would go into poverty. The very infrastructure that The United States of America is built upon would no longer have existed. According to The Atlantic Monthly Group, nearly 4 million American slaves were worth some $3.5 billion before the Civil War, making them the largest financial asset to the US and a great advantage over other countries. Quora states that "a young slave would have costed around $2000 when an acre of land only costed $5". If Thomas Jefferson were to free his slaves, his reputation as a politician and public figure would have destroyed by the South. He would be considered a laughingstock of the time. He would have been seethed and his incredible ideas and innovations would have been ignored or ridiculed. This would have taken away from his past reputation and how he was viewed by the Southern public. Jefferson did the right thing keeping his slaves, though many would say he wasn"t practicing what he was preaching by keeping his slaves, he was. If he were to sell the slaves, they would have lived in much worse conditions than Jefferson was providing. In some ways he was protecting the slaves from the issues he was trying to resolve. Because Jefferson treated his slaves with much greater respect than most slave owners would, selling them to different owners would have technically enslaved them more. "We have the wolf by it"s ear, and we can either hold him, nor safely let him go." Jefferson is saying that he wants to free the slaves, but he fears the dangers and risks, that come with their freedom, threatening his family and others.
Equation Rap Battle

Alright me = patient,But you =/=('are un') able to read 'equation'?You equals maybe a little less than Shady,Me > You and I =/=('don't) care if you hate me,Your mouth + Eminem's d**k = common as f**k,My lactose intolerance = me sick if my tongue +('was added to') M&M's butt,I'd say my D+yourmother = sexy... but,That =/=('aint') sexy since your mother = an easy slut.Your typing = dyslexic,Your weak bars = anorexic,You're retarded^2('squared'), call it 'vi_spex+ic',To mess with ya' makes me feel 2*blessed b**ch ,I'm ≈('approximately') a shark, you =(are) prey but don't sweat fish,I'll kill you fast since you messed with = you must have a death wish.
Equation Rap Battle

vi spex=maybe eminem=certainly tougher then tough in a rap battle=rap flow yo yo yo, my skill level and words are determined by my emotional state, and my emotional state in my control i am that skill that kills your litte pathetic hill its not gonna be a thrill because the ride is now in finding by not seeking emotionally like a ninja able to enjoy the suprise of spiders crawling on the skin high op in the wind in the shadows waiting to strike, yea, mic drops unheard by the roar of the crowd
security > liberty

I would first like to apologize for my amusing typos made in my previous argument. Alas, I thought I had thoroughly proofread it but they slipped by. Secondly, I find my opponent's blatant use of the AD Hominem fallacy repulsive. Clearly note that no offense has been taken though. I wish to issue a friendly reminder that when calling someone an idiot you should re-read multiple times to catch any errors. I wish to remind my opponent that the debate is not about wether compromises should be made at all; the debate centers around wether or not liberty is greater than security. I would also like to clear up a little confusion. I do not believe that the slightest compromise will cause a government to degenerate into a totalitarian rule, I believe that many compromises are abused and used to limit the liberties they effect. Once again, that isn't what this debate is about, the debate is about wether liberty is greater than security. Rebuttal: 1.) Pro states that the fact that regulations exist regarding firearms and speech proves his argument. If my opponent was arguing that reasonable laws not impeding or infringing upon the citizen's rights are acceptable then he would be correct in saying so, but he is arguing that security is greater than liberty. 2.) "I would be happy if that I was wire tapped and it caused New York to be saved from a bomb." I would like to point out that if in fact a wire tap on my opponent' address had saved New York from a bomb that would mean he had been in allegiance with the perpetrators of the crime and consequently he would most likely be quite unhappy that his nefarious scheme was thwarted. Furthermore, the NSA's surveillance of private citizens of the United States of America failed miserably at stopping the Boston Bombers. In conclusion I would like to reiterate that liberties and security go hand in hand. Without even the most common freedoms the people are subject to the villainous tyranny of their own government. As usual I ask spectators to cast aside their own opinions and judge this debate fairly and without bias. This concludes the debate.
security > liberty

con argues if we allow some compromises on liberty, that hte government will inevitably become totalitarian etc. first, he doesn't demonstrate that hat has always been the case. second, he doesn't argue how it's not possible for us to 'at least sometimes' allow compromises. it seems that it'd be extremely realistic to allow compromises sometimes. and third, he doesn't really address the proportionality issue, again. he says he addressed that issue, but i dont see how he could have. he just gave some examples of things he would prefer not be violated. and then i went on to explain that there are in fact commonly accepted points where those things are violated, which proves my point more than his. and he probably didn't even consider them due to his ignorance. especially he he acts as if it's either we have complete liberty, or we don't.... i dont see how he's really addressing the proportinality point, unless his point is that there is proportionality should never be the rule. and he's an either / or cat. con begins asking rhetorical questions as if i would suddenly reject any compromises on my liberty, once i saw that it happened. i just don't agree. i would be happy that i was wiretapped if it caused new york to be saved from a bomb. or wahtever. as usual when someone analogizes about the holocause, con doesn't follow to our current debate. the jews weren't giving up liberty for security when they went to the camps. they had no choice but to go to the camps. or they would die. i feel foolish even entertainging this anaology much longer.
security > liberty

My opponent claims that I did not address his point of proportionality. If he had been closely following my arguments he would have seen that I did address the issue with points 1 and 2. They were used as examples. My opponent brings up another interesting scenario that I choose to play along with. My opponent states, " Would he rather the government sometimes wiretap without a warrant or die?" First I wish to point out that's no government offering such an ultimatum has shriveled into a totalitarian rule. It cannot be trusted to provide any safety wether you obey it or not. Liberty and safety are entertained and cannot be separated. As for laws regarding free speech, slander and liable are the only ones with any real backbone. Other things such as "hate speech" are twisted and perverse weapons that are abused far to often. I ask my opponent what would he do when he wakes up from his sheepish peace-craving slumber and sees the fragments of his former rights lying before him? Will he come to the same realization as many slaves? Will he realize then that with each liberty he sacrificed to preserve his life, he gave up hope for his safety? My opponent is traveling down the path of many Jews during the Holocaust. The Jews followed the Germans thinking that they could work their way out of the camps ( signs suggesting such a notion were posted on the gates). I ask my opponent to recall where those Jews drew their last breath. I ask him to explain to me why they did not get safer as their liberty was taken.
security > liberty

con doesn't really argue against proportionality, my strongest point in the debate. would he rather government sometimes wiretap without a warrant, or die? he gives a couple examples, but these are mostly just specific argumentsthat don't negate the bigger point that sometimes security trumps liberty. but to address them to an extent. yes free speech can be regulated too much. it's important to remember though, that there are more than a handful of speech that is regualted. fighting words, slander, obscenity, incitement, child porn, etc etc here's more. http://en.wikipedia.org... this better illustrates that sometimes it is better to infringe on rights. con argues points no one would disagree with. when we get into a realm of what peple might go for, it favors my side more. as to bear arms point. having greater checks could also lead to less criminals with guns, and less violence. but again, those arguents are really distractions to the greater points being made.
security > liberty

I accept my opponent's challenge. I intend to show that not only is liberty greater than security, but also that liberty and security from the governing body go hand in hand; conversely, the more rights and freedoms you surrender, the less secure you become. 1.) The Freedom of Speech The freedom of speech is highly important to maintaining a secure and free system of government. What would happen if we made just a slight compromise such as throwing people in jail for treason over "traitorous" speech. That sounds reasonable doesn't it? We can't have people saying things that might stir up a rebellion. Such a compromise is detrimental to the freedom and security of citizens. Suddenly, it becomes illegal to suggest impeaching the President. Any support shown to militias ( militias are constitutional ) would be classified as "aiding an enemy". The government would have the foothold they needed to begin eroding other rights. 2.) The Right to Bear Arms The Second Amendment guarantees citizens of the United States of America the right to own and carry firearms. Although firearms are highly regulated, let's make a new provision that each and every firearm should be registered by the owner anytime the weapon changes hands. Doesn't sound to harmful does it? Once the federal government knows where all the guns are that means they could confiscate all the guns. The Second Amendment is there for the protection of citizens, wether they need to protect themselves from criminals or their own government. Such a small infringement as listed above would endanger that right. I hope I have made it clear how easily rights can be jeopardized by the slightest "compromise". I apologize for the delayed argument. I have had a very busy few days.
security > liberty

it is common, and frankly par for the course, for people to quote many great founders, that say that he who wishes for security over liberty, deserves neither liberty or security. i draw issue. would you rather die, or have your 'rights' compromised? i agree that there is an issue with proportion. frankly, i would guess most people even if they didnt come out and say it, would be for some slight compromises so as not to die. heck, if you put it that way, most would take some major compromises. it's just not politically popular to admit. and not something people really think about enough to admit. and i could possibly agree that major compromises should not be allowed for the most part. it is mostly an issue of proportionality. what it is not, though, is all all or nothing liberty being trumped by liberty.
Christianity is false

Thank you for clearing up some misconceptions, however, there are many Christians that follow the Bible word-for-word (mainly Catholics). Due to the fact that you are not one of those people, I will be using this round to attempt to prove the facts that Jesus was not the son of God. You may use the next round for any arguments you may have as well as rebuttals. There were numerous scholars recording "history" around the mediteranean at the time Jesus supposedly lived and not one of them even mentions this "great" guy that runs around converting the masses and performing miracles. Don't you think that a guy doing those things might just be newsworthy?? Add that to the fact that christianity didn't emerge till 200+ yrs later and it kinda blows a hole in the whole works!! Apart from that, there is no historical proof outside the Bible regarding the life of Jesus. It is possible that he existed, but from my point of view, it is most likely that the people whoever wrote the bible stories about him had simply mistaken him to be the son of God.
Christianity is false

I'm glad to have been given this debate. First there are a few assumptions and misconceptions my opponent has that need to be cleared up.First of all: "Remember, Christians believe that the bible is the true word of God."There are two assumptions that need to be cleared up. First, "Christians" do not believe anything as a group. There are thousands of major groups, denominations, and sects. Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, Episcopal, Baptist, Southern Baptist, Independent Fundamental Baptist, Methodist, United Methodist, Non-Denominational, Arminian, Calvinist, Cessationist, Pentecostal, Liberal, Progressive, Fundamentalist, Evangelical, and many more. Each of these disagrees on practically anything. To say "Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God" is like saying "America supports gun control." There is too much diversity to make such a broad statement.Secondly, There is an assumption of inerrancy of Scripture in my opponent's definition of the "Word of God." Inerrancy is the belief that there is not a single error in Scripture in any way, something that I vehemently disagree with. (See my Debate "Biblical Inerrancy and Infallibility is a Failed Theology) I do believe the Bible is God's Word, but not in the sense that God whispered in the ears of the writers to say what He wanted. That's foolish and childish.To me and many progressive Christians, the Bible shows the evolution of how people viewed God through history. There is polytheism, slavery, misogyny, genocide, and worse. Is that God? No, that's a primitive people's misunderstanding of God, although we see His love shine through in some pages. The Bible is a human book about a divine story. My opponent is not arguing against Christianity, but against Biblical Inerrancy.The definition of Christianity is: "the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies" (Webster Dictionary)In that, I will be arguing from here on that Jesus was the Son of God who died to save the sins of the world and rose three days later. I am not arguing:1. A specific understanding of Jesus' divinity2. Biblical Inerrancy (Idolatry)3. Trinitarianism4. For any one denomination1 Corinthians 15:17-19 lays out this idea of the resurrection being the most important theology:" And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied."Therefore, all that is needed is theism, deity of Christ, and the resurrection for Christianity to indeed be true, until my opponent counters that, Christianity still stands.
Christianity is false

I look forward to it. So, let's take a look at a few biblical contradictions. Remember, Christians believe that the bible is the true word of God. 1. God good to all, or just a few? PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works. JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them. 2. War or peace? EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name. ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen. 3. Who is the father of Joseph? MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli. These are just a few. If you would like to see more, you can visit this website . http://infidels.org... Now, let's take a look at scientifically incorrect verses 1. Anatomy of insects Leviticus 11:20-23 (NIV): All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest. 2. The smallest seed 13:31 Another parable put he [ Jesus ] forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: 13:32 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof. Note: This is another old saw which argues that Jesus was wrong because there are smaller seeds in existence, like the orchid. 3. The value of pie "He made the sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. " "It was a handbreadth in thickness. .. It held two thousand baths" - 1 Kings 7: 23,26(NIV) abbrev. Note: The mathematical number `0; is the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference. The value of `0; truncated at 10 digits is 3.141592653. The bible itself gives us a different value of `0; in 1 Kings 7:23: Again, these are just a few. To see more, visit . http://rationalwiki.org... If the Bible was the word of God, would it not have any contradictions? Would it not have any mistakes?
Humans have created religion , not God

When humans existence was there on the earth , they believed in One that is Almighty. Could you say , at that time there was Religion? No humans worshipped one God. Time went on,,,,....... religion era was back . First Hindu was there in existence . But after that Dividing went on . Then religion of Islam , after that Christianity and many other religions you can also see all these religions were due to Humans . Thus Humans are the sole creator of Religions. And if God would have created it then he would have put a stamp mark in back of everyone whom he would send to Earth.
Stem cell research on all types of stem cells should be completely legal

Also, in the very last part of Round 3, rebuttals may be made, but the last person cannot provide new points. I will be Pro for this argument and my opponent will be Con. Stem cell research is the study of stem cells to provide us with medical information about early human development and stem cell differentiation. Stem cell research also has the potential to cure numerous different incurable diseases, but there is a lot of controversy due to ethics and other factors because of how embryonic stem cells are obtained. They are obtained by extracting stem cells from an embryo, and may result in the embryo being destroyed. Stem cell research should be made completely legal (on every type of stem cell). Stem cells are cells with the "potential to develop into many different cell types in the body during early life and growth. In addition, in many tissues they serve as a sort of internal repair system, dividing essentially without limit to replenish other cells as long as the person or animal is still alive. When a stem cell divides, each new cell has the potential either to remain a stem cell or become another type of cell with a more specialized function, such as a muscle cell, a red blood cell, or a brain cell (1). " Differentiation is "the process by which a cell becomes specialized in order to perform a specific function (2). " Stem cells and differentiate into almost any cell type within the human body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (1) "Stem Cell Basics. " Stem Cell Information. National Institutes of Health, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 7 June 2012. Web. 10 Feb. 2015. (2) "Cellular differentiation. " The American Heritage" New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005. 21 Feb. 2015.
Stem cell research on all types of stem cells should be completely legal

I'm disappointed that my opponent hasn't provided me with an argument. I was really looking forward to this debate but it already seems to be over. Seeing as my opponent has provided no argument, I have nothing to debate. If my opponent doesn't forfeit next round and adds an argument with evidence, I ask you to disregard it, seeing as I would have no way to respond to his argument (and because if he does- he really should have presented his argument this round). To summarize my argument above-If stem cell research can provide us with potential cures to diseases/impairments such as spinal cord injury, diabetes, or Alzheimer's, why shouldn't we USE the excess embryos that just get wasted and give them a purpose? If they didn't get the opportunity to become someone, then we should make sure that there was some purpose for them. Thank you :) Vote Pro! (when the time comes)
love is a blessing or curse

well. thats one type of thinking. from now. I think its better to state 5 reasons of pros for you, cons for me. CONS: 1:Being pregnant might be good for you, but its possible for you to die during the procedure of taking the baby out. 2: It costs a LOT to grow, educate and feed your child 3: if your child was handicapped, no worth growing your child up! 4.If your husband divorced, life gets hard. 5. Your child have a risk of killing/ leaving you. (very low chance though)