BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The ultimate debates #1: Coca-cola (pro) VS Pepsi (con)

Alright, it seems that you have forfeited the previous round as well. I however, will not. These words are from DDO users from around the globe. 61% of people believe that coke is better. "Coke way better! Taking that first sip of a cold can of Coke is so crisp and refreshing. There is nothing like it. Pepsi tastes like its trying to replicate that, and is failing miserably. Pepsi is too sweet and it tastes flat. There is no comparison. Coke beats Pepsi by far. Their marketing is better too. Coka Cola doesn't need a ton of celebrities to endorse their product like Pepsi does. If a restaurant doesn't have Coke than I go elsewhere" " Coke is the best! Coca-Cola is much better than Pepsi because, Coke has better flavor. To me Pepsi tastes too sweet, and Coke has the right balance of sugar to cola flavor. I also like the "My Coke Rewards" because it lets me get unmistakably good deals/rewards. I have just started collecting Coke Rewards to get their sweet deals, but I have been drinking Coca-Cola for a very long time." "Coke is better Nothing against Pepsi, whatsoever, however, I just feel like if I were to sit down with my family and eat a meal I'd ask for a Coke. I hardly ever drink soda anyways, but Coke is sweeter to me than Pepsi. If I'm going to drink something terrible for me, I'd much rather have the sweeter, more likely to rot your teeth soda. And hasn't Coke been around longer?" For more opinions about the Cola wars, please read this. http://www.debate.org... While this may not be a proper argument, it is something. Well then, I am done for now. DDD
The ultimate debates #1: Coca-cola (pro) VS Pepsi (con)

The ultimate debates are here! This debate is impossible to accept. If you would like to debate this, comment. I will accept someone from the comments I would like to debate. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Arguments (max 3)Round 3: Arguments (max 3)Round 4: Arguments (max 3)Round 5: Rebuttals. You may NOT write rebuttals in any other round than the fifth. CON may NOT write rebuttals on my rebuttals in the fifth round. You may NOT bring up any new points in round 5. NO SWEARING OR RACIAL SLURS!***IMPORTANT*** This debate is only about the coca-cola DRINKS vs the Pepsi DRINKS. The ones that you can use are: Caffeine-free Coca-ColaCaffeine-free Diet Coke Coca-ColaCoca-Cola ZeroDiet Coke______________________Pepsi Diet Pepsi Caffeine Free Pepsi Pepsi Next Diet Pepsi Caffeine-free Thank You,DDD
It is time to scrap our basic political structure starting with the Two-Party System

Thank you mschechtel17 for starting this debate. I accept this debate and I will arguing for the con. The two party system may have its flaws, however, I believe that it has more good to offer than bad. You say that our current political structuring at the federal level is no longer the best fit for this Era where diversity is a huge factor in today's political climate. This is exactly the reason why we need to stick to the Two Party System. With 50 states that factor in race, gender, wage, religious beliefs, and different personal values, the US needs a system that unifies all those diversified characteristics into one party being either the Democrats or the Republicans. Having more will only further delay progress, create splits in our politics, and cause descent.
It is time to scrap our basic political structure starting with the Two-Party System

I present the idea that our current political structuring at the federal level is no longer the best fit for the Era we currently find ourselves in. Specifically the Two-Party system paradigm is incapable of accurately representing the diversity of ideas in America. I don't have an exact political system to replace the Two-Party system with, but will argue that a new one should be created. This is a free-form debate. I will argue for the Pro Just accept and state your argument and reasoning for why the Two-Party system can still be the most effective political paradigm.
Free Will is better than forced will

As my opponent makes his last statements before his conclusion here are a list of points that my opponent has tried to avoid. Since he only made a small effort to make claims and to refute my claims, there are many. - Right and wrong is subjective. He has purposely ignored my examples. My opponent has not attempted to contest this at all. Why should we be trusted to comprehend right from wrong, if an all knowing power that knows the exact difference can control us to do those things. -we cannot simply comprehend the choices between right and wrong. For both are merely ambiguous. If we cannot simply comprehend right and wrong, why should we have the power to decide between the two. - Most people tend to not learn from their mistakes. All of my points that I had mentioned before that have been contested by my opponent have been restated with clarification. My opponent since then has refused to re-contest my clarified statements. Basically surrendering to my ideals. Last round, he did not even attempt to prove my ideals wrong. Since I do not have the last say, I hope that my opponent respects my last rule in that he only restates his arguments in a conclusion. And that he does not negate any of my 3 points that he did not negate earlier unless if I had readdressed those points in the previous round. He had plenty of rounds to do so and had just chosen not to contend them.
Free Will is better than forced will

I read the introduction, despite your misconceptions I don't have to structure my arguments according to your poorly drawn format. I don't understand how you think wasting rounds is "fair" If I can rebut your points as well as make my own in the same round I will do it. "My analogy was that if nobody is in control of the car, the car would not drive. As in a supreme being is the one driving the car and the car is a human. The car cannot drive effectively by itself." Then the statement makes no sense as there is currently free will and guess what people are functioning and governing themselves. "My opponent has not made any claims whatsoever on why he thinks that free will is better than forced will." My entire analogy illustrates it. "My opponent is a true example on how there ought to be no hope for all humans to govern themselves effectively." This is an insult and voters should recognize it as such. "My opponent must believe that for one to truly be happy, he must do everything that he wants to do and nothing that he has to do." That's generally my definition of happiness. " I think my opponent is against paying taxes because it is not something that he wants to do. He just thinks that everything just pays for itself and that he should not pay because he does not want to. I really hope there are not too many of your kind of people out there." 1. Red Herring 2. Begging the question 3. Insults 4. Paying no taxes would make me happy. "If everyone was like you, nothing would get done." Again another personal attack. If everyone did what they wanted to do then the world would be as it is. Clearly things are "getting done" "Order does not exist today." Clearly order is not a black and white issue but has varying degrees. "My opponent says that if we were controlled, then we would not completely know the difference between right and wrong as well." I never said this, you did. A direct quote from your R1: "We cannot comprehend what is right and what is wrong" My opponent has made no points that make any sense or pertain to the original argument. Furthermore he has completely ignored what I said and meandered through arguments of his own that have no logical or factual backing. He has repeatedly insulted me and lied/forgot about what I said. Extend all arguments.
Free Will is better than forced will

Force is better than free will. If the right people were in charge, there would not be any suffering. God has allowed free will so that there would be suffering on this planet. "Free will is true anarchy." If all men could be trusted to act upon their own tutelage to operate as a sophisticated and civilized human beings, then anarchy would not be frowned upon. God had trusted men to act sophisticated and civilized on our own free will. Ultimately we have failed God and there ought to be a new change. With nobody steering the wheel of the car, the car is not in control. With free will there is nobody driving the car. Free will for one person can be detrimental to someone else. "It is all fun and games until someone gets hurt." I can kill someone saying that I' am purely exercising my free will. Or someone can force me to do the right thing so I would never kill anyone. Nobody would harm me. I would not harm anyone. An all powerful being should be in charge of controlling us so that utopia would have already been reached. Should life be such an ultimate test to do what is right? One cannot simply comprehend the choices between right and wrong. For both are merely ambiguous. Example: 1)One cannot kill as long as it is for religion. Christian crusaders abused this rule by massacring countless people under the Christian Church. 2)Manifest Destiny justified the murder of countless Native Americans under Christian beliefs for the colonization of the United States. 3)We state opinions and set conditions to justify our judgment. We today see humans controlling things like robots to work for us through programming. Nobody sees any harm in that. It would be just like programming a human to do the right thing. Nobody is complaining for the countless robots in human control. The robots are not complaining either. Throughout our world history with people that were in power whether by birthright, voting, or any other method have tried to control the governed. This is natural. Even though they were not completely successful, opening people to the idea of total control can help to ease tension between the two extremes. There is no hope for humanity. Without control there would not be any order. With nobody in control who would enforce order. Order needs to be enforced through total control.
Free Will is better than forced will

Introduction: My debate friend ASKBOB belongs to a Christian sect just like I do. As a Christian, my opponent believes in free will. In my opponent's last debate, my opponent claimed that without free will one cannot repent. If one cannot repent then one cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. I claimed that one does not have to repent to enter in to the kingdom of heaven. Jesus did not repent. If everyone had forced will, then all can make it to the kingdom of heaven. My opponent will argue that free will is better than forced will. While I argue that forced will is better than free will. Rules: Round 1: Introduction - I lay out conditions. Like what I'm doing. - I say hello, my opponent says the same. Round 2: Argument (1) - I state my views and arguments - My opponent states his views and arguments without yet contending any of my views and arguments. Round 3: - I contend arguments from first round only. - My opponent will contend arguments from my first round only. Round 4: Argument (2) - Answer contended arguments from round 3. Saved rounds round. Bring up new found information if necessary. -Person who goes second, there is no contention of information from this round. The person who goes second answers contended arguments from round 3 instead. Bring up new information if necessary. Round 5: Conclusion Contend last arguments from previous round only. This is conditional for both debaters. Conclusion statements are for both debaters.
People are Born Gay

"Why would people subject themselves to the kind of ridicule that homosexuals experience, willingly?" What you call ridicule the homosexual community embrace as freedom of their beliefs. The homosexuals knowing accept the way they have made themselves. From what you are saying also is that people should keep any unaccepted social norm to themselves are never confront it. That is unkind. Also to add the sentence I have quoted offer no proof or backs any claim my opponent has made in his opening argument. As the instigator it is not wrong of me to assume that you have proof to back your claim. To date, no researcher has claimed that genes can determine sexual orientation. At best, researchers believe that there may be a genetic component. No human behavior, let alone sexual behavior, has been connected to genetic markers to date. —PFLAG (Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians And Gays), "Why Ask Why: Addressing the Research on Homosexuality," 1995 [1] [1]http://www.queerbychoice.com...
Convince me that the Christian faith is the truth

As I have expressed earlier I believe that evolution is 100% plausible, and thus I do not wish disprove something I agree with.I accepted this debate as the title was "convince me the the Christian faith is true" which was extremely misleading, due to the fact that you do not want to debate that, you are more focused on whether or not evolution is valid. So I will be happy to convince you of the Christian faith, but if not then you may call it a draw.In the future, please make the title of the argument more specific to what it is that you want to discuss. =)
Convince me that the Christian faith is the truth

I am very sorry for my forfeit, I was in an area with no internet access. So far, all my opponent has done is explain the Gap Theory and the Day Age Theory. This is, thus far, a discussion, not a debate. My opponent has not yet attacked evolution, which is part of his BOP, and has done little to nothing in order to prove Christianity as the one true faith. As a result, I have nothing to argue and nothing to refute. I emphasize that in order to win the debate, my opponent must disprove evolution. It seems like my opponent made a mistake by accepting this debate and if he does not wish to argue against evolution, then we can call it a draw. But so far, my opponent has made no moves to fulfill his BOP.
Convince me that the Christian faith is the truth

As mentioned, my opponent has the sole BOP. I see my opponent is new to the site, so I will explain what this means. Sole BOP means that only YOU, my opponent, have to prove anything. Since I do not have the Burden of Proof, my job in the debate is to refute arguments that YOU present without having to introduce any of my own. Now, to address what my opponent has presented so far: To the best of my knowledge, the Christian religion, creationist, teaches that people and this Earth was nearly "spontaneously" created by a higher power. Evolution teaches that the organisms on this planet slowly came into being through billions of years of natural selection (and other factors that spur evolution). Considering these two things, I do not understand how evolution and creationism can go hand in hand as my opponent suggests. If this is what he wishes to argue, then I request that he expands on his previous statements. If not, he must fulfill his BOP by proving that the Christian faith is the sole truth (this involves disproving evolution).
Convince me that the Christian faith is the truth

Hello my friend!I will be happy to debate with youChristianity does not have to disprove evolutionI will give you any and all the information you want about why the chirtian faith in acurate in what it says, but the existance of a god does not have to disprove evolution. In fact, there are many theories that support evolution in the bible and how they may both co-exist.A relevant theory is the "gap theory" which states that between Genisis 1:1 and Genisis 1:2 there was actually a huge gap of time where many of the theistic evolution may have came about.Another theory is that because the bible never states how long each "Day" was, so it may have been huge leaps of time between each day where micro-evolution or even macro-evolution could have taken placeGood luck with the debate, my friend :)
(Christian Debate Only) - The laws are done away with and Christians don't have to follow them

I provided applicable teachings from the Apostle Paul, which directly address the matter of the Law's relation to the believer in Christ. Perhaps he can comment on how these do not weigh on the matter, as they are statements about the relationship, not necessarily stated in a commanding way.Rebuttal #1: Book of GalatiansThe Book of Galatians is written for the church in Galatia,[1] which was mostly Gentile. My opponent has not really even addressed my exegesis of Galatians 3, but has instead asserted that I read in my own interpretation. I will let the voter decide as this is an unjustified assertion on the part of my opponent. Rebuttal #2: Fulfilled the LawHe is talking about the righteous requirement of the Law, which is not fulfilled in those who by rule keeping hold to the Mosaic Law, Paul rather reveals."For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."[2]Notice again the language of fulfillment, in that the righteousness that the Law was meant to create, was fulfilled not through law-keeping, but through Spirit led life on account of Jesus' death burial and resurrection.Rebuttal #3: Rapid-Fire Proof-textingI will not spend time addressing all these texts, as my opponent assumes that they simply support his case, without explaining how they do.Rebuttal #4: Keep the commandments of God?My opponent has simply missed the point of what has changed in the New Testament, that through the act of love, one now fulfills the purpose of the law. "Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."[3]This means that being under the law is no longer necessary, that we have been released from the law and now belong to Christ, who in our faith working through love acheives what the law could not.Thus my opponent simply ignores Paul's New Testament teachings and indeed consistent message of all the New Testament, but most explicitly laid down teachings by Paul who discussed the issue as he was an Apostle to the Gentiles.Best Regards,TrueScotsman[1] Galatians 1:2 (ESV)[2] Romans 8:3-4 (ESV)[3] Romans 13:8-10 (ESV)
(Christian Debate Only) - The laws are done away with and Christians don't have to follow them

I accept this debate, though counter with the totally unreasonable claim that "Christ came to destroy the law."This is totally unfair to ask for from my opponent as Christ explicitly said “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." I will however, argue that Christians are no longer under the Mosiac Law, specifically the 10 commandments, which is the primary thrust of the debate topic.I hope Con can agree to these terms, Best Regards,TrueScotsman
(Christian Debate Only) - The laws are done away with and Christians don't have to follow them

ONLY a Christian who believes that they do not have to follow the 10 commandments anymore can accept this challenge. My opponent cannot change the topic of the debate. Only the commandments are to be spoken of in this debate, nothing else. A couple days ago, I got into an argument with a Christian who believes they are free from the commandments The Most High still commands us to keep. My main goal here is to teach Christians that they are not being taught the Bible, rather, they are being taught man-made doctrine. For the first round, I ask my opponent to accept and agree to the terms of this debate. In the second round, I will provide my supporting evidence to support my claim. My opponent then must refute my claim and provide me with SCRIPTURE ONLY, stating:1. The Messiah YAHUSHUAH, or the Christian "Jesus Christ," came to destroy the laws. And2. Scripture stating the laws no longer need to be followed.
Gay Marriage

Gay people cant accidentally get pregnant, but still. (like i said in the comments section of this debate) Some people think marriage is about repopulation. idiots are still going to go have sex without condoms so there will still be babies being born outside of marriage. and the world has too many people as it is now. Homosexuality actually probably slows down the growth rate of our nation but thats a GOOD thing. THe world is becoming so overpopulated and yet we still have people who end up in financial issues and homeless. Less people on earth would make that problem a smaller one at least.
Teachers should not be allowed to have guns in school

Think about it what if a teacher had a gun. There would be a great chance for a child to actually take the gun and use it in school. Some children might snatch the gun while the teacher isn't looking and how many mass murders have you seen on TV lately ever since the sandy hook shooting? Basically none. School security has improved and it isn't stupid when someone locks the doors in the lunchroom and call it stupid. I had a lockdown once and my teacher covered the door. And when someone tried to open he couldn't open because of the lockdown plan. It is not very stupid indeed Some teachers shouldn't even have a gun because what if a child is unstable and later on he gets on hold of it and causes a rampage. And you cannot always count on the person who has a gun will be a good guy teachers cause crimes also and if teachers cause crime what makes sense to give them a gun. The point of this debate was for me to show you that guns should not be in the hands of teachers and your point is that teachers need to have guns. Here are my extra reasons 1) Teachers are there for learning not to become a police officer defending themselves with gun. 2) There will be probably less children attending the school and children do not perform well if they are nervous taking exams. They will become nervous if a teacher is having a gun in their classroom. The children will be scared if they think the teacher will shoot one of the students and end up becoming scared and nervous. 3) Teachers are not good supervisors. And they aren't because I bet you all of you out there know when your teacher leaves the classroom sometimes she may not leave a teacher watching the students the out come will be a child carrying a gun. Also what if you were at the back of the line next to the teachers desk and the teacher wasn't looking a child would be tempted to grab hold of the gun. Showing all of this concludes that teachers should have no guns in their hands. Your turn
Teachers should not be allowed to have guns in school

You are supposed to state a detailed version of your own argument before rebutting, but fine. Rebuttals:True but your statement is known as a little false. Ever since the Sandy hook shooting the chance of a mass murder decreases steadily. And school security has upgraded, also there has been plans on having lockdowns for many schools and it actually intends to work. So teachers do not need a handheld weapon. I've been to schools who are trying to implement these "improved" security measures and they are an absolute joke. One school was stupid enough to believe that simply locking some of the doors to the school during lunch would be better security. The reality of the situation is that no amount of "security" can stop a man with a pistol or an AR-15 unless the schools themselves have a trained professional with a gun on campus. Anyone who thinks that schools are actually taking effective measures to prevent school shotings are kidding themselves. You are supporting that teachers do not need a gun to defend themselves and yes there should be guards. This contradicts your beliefs in the first rebuttal, and if we both agree that schools should have armed guards, we really don't have anything to debate, do we? When I accepted the debate, I assumed you meant you were against guns on school campuses at any capacity.