BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religious institutions should be taxed like everyone else.

The reason why religious institutions should not be taxed is because of the first amendment. The first amendment states the following-"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. " The problem with taxes is that not every religion will be taxed the same. If a religion is taxed less than another than that could be viewed as respecting an religion over another, which is against the first amendment. Also churches use the tithes as ways to build churches, temples, and/or meeting houses to areas that don't have such buildings. With taxes that could be prohibiting someone from worshiping by taking the money that could go toward building a church house and giving it to the government. Also the separation of state and church which means that both are separate and taxes don't follow this rule. I pass it to my opponent. sources . http://www.law.cornell.edu...
Abortion is Wrong

Abortion is Wrong- I've often debated this topic online casually but I'd like to have a civilised debate between myself and one other opponent, where facts are discussed and the discussion does not dissolve into name calling or meaningless profanity. I will be taking the pro side- I do believe abortion is wrong in all circumstances and I will defend this happily. My opponent will take the con side and defend abortion itself. Round one is for acceptance of the challenge. I eagerly await the acceptance of my opponent.
There are some things that we can NEVER understand through empirical science.

Empirical science has enabled us to get a sharper and sharper understanding of things in the world. Things like galaxies, atoms, cells, behavior, ecology, sociology, economics, and so forth. As we continue to study the world empirically, our knowledge will continue to grow and details that seem to be fuzzy now will continue to become more and more in focus. When it comes to the behavior of objects in the external world, there is scarcely anything which is impossible to understand and explain to a relatively large extent. However, there are a certain large class of phenomena for which I believe science can NEVER shed light on. Although we can have absolute knowledge of the things in this domain, we can never prove that we have it. We can never truly share this knowledge with anyone else. We can't even come up with a scientific theory which might plausibly explain this class of phenomena. Moreover, this class of phenomena is a fundamental part of reality. In fact, it is the basis of all science! If you disagree and believe there is no such domain of knowledge, accept this challenge and I will then make my case.
Complete Freedom

Just saying, I am for partial freedom not no freedom. I believe that we should not have complete freedom. This is because, Even though freedom is important, It would cause chaos. Let's make a scenario: This country gets complete freedom and people can do whatever they can. However, Since they are completely unbridled, Nothing can stop malicious people, Like murderers. It would be dangerous right? However, We should not completely NOT have freedom because, Then no one will be able to do anything they want to do, Which is a horrible life. Therefore, There should not be complete freedom but there should be a partial freedom.
Complete Freedom

Every type of organism have their own interpretation of freedom. For fish it is enough water to swim, For bird is a good tree to take off, Land, And build nest. And what about humans? They all have their own interpretation, Again. Kim Joh Un want the world via nukes(power), Lil tay wants money(wealth), And Lincoln longed for human right(morality). Everybody has their own interpretation of freedom, And that is the right to desire. Everything could be granted or denied, And the rear option is not freedom, While the other one is. We could grant our own wish via ourselves, Which could lead to complete freedom. The denial of complete freedom is affected by the international rule of freedom, Which, Through the eyes of elsewhere could mean this is not freedom by all means, We were owned by others. That is the point of other nations, Instead of a giant alliance across the world. We could even start our own nation and declare, Although your own government from the capital city will deny it, But you have your own sense of freedom. That, If matches your definition, Is your point of "freedom".
Resolved: Demilitarization of the United States Police

So to start of the pro side of this argument lets start off with the police being already too overpowered. 1.The police are already too overpowered. a.The department of Homeland Security have been giving grants to the police since 2003 b.Most militarization today happens outside of the 1033 Program. Giving them new military-grade gear c.The police will always have a SWAT team. Larger departments already have several. d.Therefor as stating before "overpowered". e.The police already having, tanks, and other militarized weapons put them at an all-time advantage, which is not good. i.Tanks, and other tracked armored vehicles, weaponized aircrafts and vehicles, firearms and ammunition measuring .50-caliber and larger, grenade launchers and bayonets. ii.Also bringing in attack dogs, tear gas, and other harmful materials. iii.(1033 was created by the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1997 as part of the U.S. Government"s Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services (DLA) to transfer excess military equipment to civilian law enforcement agencies.) Yes I know I did state this before.
Resolved: Demilitarization of the United States Police

meh? meh.Quick Fact of the Day:Did you know the famous quote "et tu, Brute?" does NOT mean "and you, Brutus?""et tu" used in that case is a Latin contraction for "etiam tu" which means "and you too".Julius Caesar's last words in the play were therefore actually "and you too, Brutus? Then fall, Caesar!"
kids who finish High school deserve free post secondary education

Positive externalities of higher education. Generally, university education does offer some external benefits to society. Higher education leads to a more educated and productive workforce. Countries with high rates of university education generally have higher levels of innovation and productivity growth. Therefore, there is a justification for the government subsidizing higher education. The United States is by far and away the biggest economy in the world. Out of Western countries, it is also by far and away the greatest producer. It is also a false equivalency to compare small European countries to a giant country. Controlling small population systems and funding them is much easier than controlling a mega-multicultural country of massive size. Education is a merit good. One characteristic of a merit good is that people may underestimate the benefits of studying and undervalue higher education. No one is obligated to provide people a free product, much less one of quality. POINTS The proposition of Pro ignores the domino effect. What happens to everything else when you make education free? Everyone is qualified When everyone is highly qualified, wages drop through the floor. Your qualifications can be found in anyone. Are you going to deliver babies for $17,000 a year? Of course you are if we hire you. You're lucky to have a job at all seeing everyone is qualified. Now go do surgery. Education Quality drops Professors get paid nothing now because everyone is qualified to be a professor. You have a professor in poverty, as you attempt to get a minimum wage job that everyone is qualified to do. No one pays for college, so now we can't afford the tools needed to teach you well. Better learn to love reading books from 1984. That's all the school could afford. Which college has to take you dilemma Can you go to a regional college? Well you wanted to go to Harvard for the most elite education. Guess what? It's booked to capacity because college is free. You cool with Springfield College for Crap Weasels? I hope so. It's the only place with room for you. And guess what? Professors and school administrators have certain predjudices. I hope you don't match any of them, otherwise they'll pack the place with their favorite group, race, or their friends' kids, despite having horrible grades in highschool. You had good grades in highschool? So what? College is free. Community College of the Ozarks is all that is open for you.
kids who finish High school deserve free post secondary education

I understand my opponent's opinions but there seem to be way more pros to this factor than cons. Post-secondary education can really enhance a person's life and allow more opportunities. Often some of the hardest workers are not given these opportunities because they are unable to afford it. The following are more reasons why I believe post-secondary education should be free. 1.Positive externalities of higher education. Generally, university education does offer some external benefits to society. Higher education leads to a more educated and productive workforce. Countries with high rates of university education generally have higher levels of innovation and productivity growth. Therefore, there is a justification for the government subsidizing higher education. 2.Equality. There is also a powerful argument that university education should be free to ensure equality of opportunity. If students have to pay for university education, this may dissuade them. In theory, students could take out loans or work part-time, but this may be sufficient to discourage students from studying and instead may enter the job market earlier. 3.Increased specialization of work. The global economy has forced countries, such as the UK to specialize in higher tech and higher value-added products and services. The UK"s biggest export industries include pharmaceuticals, organic chemicals, optical and surgical instruments, and nuclear technology (see: what does the UK produce?). Therefore, there is a greater need for skilled graduates who can contribute to these high-tech industries. 4.Education is a merit good. One characteristic of a merit good is that people may underestimate the benefits of studying and undervalue higher education. Government provision can encourage people to study. Non-economic benefits of education. It is tempting to think of university education in purely monetary terms. But graduates can also gain skills and awareness of civic institutions which offer intangible benefits to society.
kids who finish High school deserve free post secondary education

I will address my opponent's points in four sections. 1)America might become more socially divided. Many people claim that college itself has helped socially divide the country. a)Many liberal colleges have brainwashed kids that everyone is racist, everything is socially unjust, and literally taught otherwise normal kids to become fart leftwing extremists. https://www.theblaze.com... https://www.amazon.com... b)Student debt that can never be paid off in a lifetime divides us socially. If you have $100,000 in student debt, you fall to the bottom of that divide rather quickly and never dig out. The same people dependent on this money are the ones telling you how evil the Capitalism system is and are feigning and preaching free college. Yeah right. That's a warning sign. 2)Less Americans will need public assistance. I disagree with this assessment because I think that there will be the same amount of jobs no matter how many people go to college. It will just flood those job markets with qualified workers who can't get jobs in those fields due to everyone being qualified. It might cause more joblessness. Pay for these jobs would also go down. Why? Because qualified workers would now be a dime a dozen. You could find them anywhere. What drives pay up in a career path is the fact that finding good, qualified workers in that career is hard. 3)Most good students don't apply for loans because of low income. Here are links about to get free grants for college and ways to pay absolutely nothing for tuition. http://money.cnn.com... http://www.collegescholarships.org... https://studentaid.ed.gov... 4)Student Loan Debt- This might be a great argument to be crystal clear on what loans you do or do not take for college in the current atmosphere. I argue that if you had been working those 4-10 years of college at any job, you could get ahead by 4-10 years worth of savings and offset or even accumulate more than if you had gone to college to get a job that now everyone and their dog is qualified for.
kids who finish High school deserve free post secondary education

-Seperation of church and state- Making kids go to liberal colleges at this point is the equivalent of making kids go to church to learn about God, Jesus, and some Christian version of morality. It has become a religion. They've literally brainwashed men into thinking they are women and women into thinking they are men, when neither is true. They have brainwashed them into thinking safe spaces magically exist and to become dependent on therapy dogs. Sorry, I don't want my kids exposed to a religion as backwards as that. -Pay for it- We are 20 trillion dollars in debt. We can't find the funds for our society now, much less if we add this burden on top of it. -Better educations- Conservatives literally do not have the degrees that liberals have, yet make more money. Why waste your time on an education that teaches you to be poorer? Why waste time on something that won't teach you job skills or life skills? Why not go ahead and make some money? -Less qualified professors- Without the high tuition, these institutions couldn't afford the best teachers, so you'd get an even worse education than I had demonstrated above. What great educator would want to work for peanuts? None would. -Saturation- Everyone would go to Medical or Law school, and that market would be flooded. The other markets would be unable to find workers. That in turn would mean doctors would get paid less, and we would now not be able to get the best doctors.
Creationism should not be taught in schools

To begin I'd like to preempt the most predictable waste of space arguments on this I can imagine, I thereby concede all future points specific to science class.Introduction:I believe we can all agree the job of a school is to teach. They have different classes for different subjects, with some crossover.Schools often face criticism for banning books, in part based on the idea they are banning knowledge. Some schools refuse to teach sex-education as anything more than abstinence, which making things comfortable for the parents or not, is often harmful to the students.I believe students should never be separated from knowledge.My case:Students often choose which classes to take, with many of the classes not required for graduation. A generalized religious education class could compact the information into a single classroom, keeping most of it away from the other students who are uninterested.Further religion has been involved in shaping this world. A teacher needs to be able to explain such in more details than "it just happened." To ban them from saying "the crusades were faught over the following religious idiologies..." would just be moronic.In a logic class there is a similar dilima, if a teacher is not allowed to tell students what creationism is, they are not allowed to encourage deep thinking about it (such as pointing out the common circular argument fallacies inherent), which leaves children no better off than whatever their parents teach them.In a basic English class, it's a common enough word. If the teacher is not allowed the teach that word, than there may be awkward moments for the students. Let's look at another word some people don't like, if a student asks "what's does nigger mean?" Should the teacher simply say they're not allowed to answer that, likely leading the student to using it even more; or simple teach what the word is including why it's a piece of profanity. If a student asks "what does creationism mean?" The teacher should be able to teach that "Creationism is the religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being." Which is not to say endorse it. This is of course an example that applies even to strictly secular schools.
Creationism should not be taught in schools

I will be arguing that creationism should not be taught in public or private secular schools. Rules: No trolling. If trolling, con forfeits all seven points. No name calling or anything like that. Civil. Con must argue that creationism should be taught in public and private secular schools. First round is acceptance or argument. If argument, con doesn't argue in third round. Definitions: "Creationism is the religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being" http://en.wikipedia.org... Secular: denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis http://www.merriam-webster.com... public schools: Schools financed by the federal and state government. private school: any school not financed by the federal or state government.
Animal experimentation in the context of medical science

My opponent is mistaken on 5 points: 1) "Animal testing brings us down to the level of the animal, and there is a less morbid alternative. " My opponent's argument at this point bears small relevance to the real world. Animal testing does not bring one down to the level of the animal, as animals do not conduct experiments of the sort we are discussing. On the other hand, if you are proposing that testing on animals brings us down to a lower intellectual or ethical level, then one of my opponent's main points is flawed. By arguing thus, my opponent is effectively saying that animals are, in fact, 'beneath' us. Researchers only use animals because they are seen to be worth less than human lives. 2) "Studies show that animal testing results are mostly useless to humans, meaning that my opponent's Cancer patient could die from the medicine. " It is important for my opponent to realise that animal testing is not supposed to be 100% accurate. Nor is it supposed to be used as the sole means of testing new treatments. Tests are conducted on animals because they are the closest models to humans. Animals are used in the initial screening of a drug in an effort to spot likely side-effects. in my original argument, I pointed out that all mammals share significant similarities. Activists often point out that 80% of drugs tested in animals never make it to human trials. They see this as a failure, when, in fact, it shows that 80% of potentially lethal new medications are not administered to human patients. Once initial safety screening is done, human trials begin. Regarding my cancer patient- my opponent rightly asserts that he could die from the medication. However, the point of animal testing is to weed out the medicines which are likely to cause him harm. As I have said, no screening procedure is perfect, but animal testing is the most accurate model we currently have, without using humans. 3) "the death toll from human testing is relatively low" Human testing is never carried out without prior animal tests. At least, this is true for drugs. Surgeries may be trialled in humans without first being tested in animals, but these tend to be the procedures which do not involve radical changes to the currently used procedure/s. I would suggest that one of the reasons human tests result in a low death toll is because of initial animal tests. 4) The second link provided by my opponent bears small relevance to this debate, as it mainly talks about human error in conducting clinical trials. It does not provide any arguments for a feasible alternative to animal testing. 5) "Thus, animal testing is immoral, and there is a clear alternative" I would suggest that my opponent's argument does not support his assertion that animal testing is immoral to a sufficient degree, as no clear argument has been made supporting this claim. Furthermore, my opponent is mistaken if he believes that there are alternatives to animal testing that would not involve wide-spread harm to human patients.
Animal experimentation in the context of medical science

I shall disprove my opponents points on a single contention: Animal testing brings us down to the level of the animal, and there is a less morbid alternative. Studies show that animal testing results are mostly useless to humans, meaning that my opponent's Cancer patient could die from the medicine. See the following link: http://www.buzzle.com... On the other hand, the death toll from human testing is relatively low; this would be the alternative to animal testing. see link: http://www.time.com... Thus, animal testing is immoral, and there is a clear alternative.
Animal experimentation in the context of medical science

1.You may not use information as granted unless sourced, no exceptions. Please cite. 2.You are once again using this unsourced information. Animal testing would miss at least 75% of dangerous medicines, and would pull at least 75% of safe medicines, and "The drugs are quickly forgotten and abandoned if they don't work in animals." Thus, the death toll would only slightly increase (if at all: animal tests do not precede clinical trials) with the abandonment of animal testing, and the overall death toll would even out or decrease, as less humans would die from faulty treatments (remember: 75% of bad medicines go through) and missing treatments (75% of good ones are pulled). No matter how many relevant tests are performed, they still are only 5-25% of the big picture, and animal tests do not necessarily precede human tests. 3.This presents nothing and is unsourced, thus voiding it. 4.the clear alternative is clinical tests, and as animal tests do not precede human trials, the death toll would decrease (see earlier cited statistics). 5. This is cited. Animal tests do not precede human tests, unless cited otherwise. 6.This quote does relate to the topic. You "refuted" it by saying that humans were at a higher level, which only serves to support my point. 7.You have not shown that animal tests are effective. 8."Not perfect" does not fit a failure rate that is greater than 75%. You state animal testing as the only alternative to human testing. What about human testing itself? Man should take care of his own treatment.
Animal experimentation in the context of medical science

Animal testing does not pull dangerous medicines. as stated by my source, as it would only find 5-25% of them. Thus, this claim is not only disputable, but groundless. As for your mentioning of "common knowledge", a citation is required. If it's common knowledge, there must be a page that says so. Here's a page that says the heart pumps blood around the body! http://wiki.answers.com... True enough that buzzle.com is an unreliable source. However, it is a source nonetheless, and I ask you to find an opposing one. As for your last comment, please stop being assertive about your knowledge and cite your sources. Your final comment has been refuted. To begin with, MOST animal tests are not applicable to humans. In addition, please cite your sources (as stated earlier in this argument)