BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
America is one of the Worst Countries in the World

America, loved by it's citizens, hated by most everybody else. For the following three reasons, America IS one of the worst countries in the world. Firstly, America has a horrible education system. According to [1], America is ranked 29th in mathematics, 20th in reading, and 23rd in science. We are the richest country in the world, yet we cannot afford to educate our children? Though many people just attribute this to common, but false, asian stereotypes [2], countries like Lichtenstein, Estonia, Switzerland, and the Netherlands all ranked above the United States as well. The key to a countries future is its children, and although 29th in math doesn't seem to bad, compared to the modern world, it is rock dumb. Even the Guardian, a major news company itself, admits that poor education can lead to a heavy reliance on the news, and this can lead to extreme stereotypes and racism[3], another major problem in the United States today. Secondly, Decaying infrastructure characterizes many U.S. cities and towns. According to [4], we haven't invested much in infrastructure in 60 years. Take, for example our airports, which are filthy and disgusting. They have been repeatedly ranked in the ten worst airports in the world according to many polls and lists, such as CNN, and Reuters. The American Society of Civil Engineers in a recent report indicates that infrastructure deficiencies add $97R02;R02;billion a year to the cost of operating vehicles and result in travel delays that cost $32R02;billion. And while the United States lets its infrastructure rot, other countries like Germany, Russia, China, and Japan have spent increasing amounts on their infrastructure. How can we be a good country when we have such bad infrastructure? Sources: [1]http://www.npr.org... [2]http://www.natcom.org... [3]http://www.theguardian.com... [4]http://www.washingtonpost.com... Also, I would like to thank my opponent. I have been sick for the past two days, and I just got on hoping I could post the round in time. Unfortunately I could not.
Resolved: The US government should ban love since its a class 1 narcotic

I accept, Better???? After reading all of your refutes I notice that they are all false. All of your arguments are explaining the lack of love one would have. I'm sure that if one is In love, one would not kill them self. You say sweating... So should hot weather be banned too? Or how about sports that cause sweating? "Just because something is natural it doesn't mean it should be legal dipstick..... You know what else is natural? BEARS. " Bears aren't banned from existence. So you prove my point. Natural things shouldn't be banned. Main Arguments/Conclusion 1 You didn't fully refute my conclusion. 2 You never gave me a good reason why it should be banned. 3 You thought I was going to forfeit all of the rounds but I didn't. BIG MISTAKE 4 I also like your last round argument. Are you trying to sway voters your way? 5 You gave me no sources to the "negative side affects of love." 6 I will post a part of my conclusion that you didn't refute. "Since one cannot control the self emotions like love. That's why adrenaline rushes aren't illegal." You cant ban emotions. 7 This argument is crucial. YOU would not be alive if this didn't happen to you when you were a baby. If you lacked psychological affection you could die!!!!!! Studies have proved this. Sorry, we were all born to love..... :) Sources for argument 7. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.psychologytoday.com... http://message.snopes.com... 8 Guess what, even though I forfeited officially two rounds. The voters will see you forfeited as well. In round 3 I quote "Every time.... EVERY - TIME" has nothing to do with the debate. Also I quote in round 4 "Vote Pro" really? I ask myself. You took the easy way out. You never made any arguments of your own. Which is sad. Voters have a mind of their own. Don't tell them to vote your way. Don't be a beggar. Thanks
Resolved: The US government should ban love since its a class 1 narcotic

Im guessing that your failure to see that condition highly suggests that your are high out of your mind on love, which has effected your reading ability. .. . Whatever, lets see what your arguments are. . "-As you can see in the song. It repeatedly asks, "What is love? " "Yeah, and thats because love is such a huge drug that it can mess you up and cause you to not even remember what the hell the thing you just drugged yourself with even is! "-It also is saying "Oh baby, don't hurt me. " "That right there is first-hand testimony that love does in fact hurt people both physically and psychologically! "Since love heals the soul. Love will not hurt"Ok 1) Love most certainly does NOT heal the soul. .. . Love will tear the soul to shreds and then eat its body in front of its children. ..2) Love most certainly DOES hurt. .. .. . Love can send you into an endless depression for months, maybe even years, and have you tried getting over someone YOU HAVENT EVEN DATED? Love most certainly DOES hurt people, thats why 2/3rds of all love songs sound like the singer is getting a prostate exam with a rusty spatula. " Love has no negative side effects like meth or heroine"LOLOLOL yeah right. .. . Side effects of being in love:Doing really stupid stuffQuestioning your entire existenceConstantly thinking about someone as a result of loveFantasizing over being in an impossibly great relationship with someoneHeart PalpitationsSweatingComing down with 'Stupid-brain' when talking to someone while on loveJealousy when that same person so much as even talks to someone elsePutting hoes before brosIn extreme cases - Suicide and deathIn even extremer cases - MARRIAGELove has COUNTLESS negative side effects that could completely derail someone's life. To claim that love has no negative side effects is the equivalent of saying that the opinions section is a great addition to DDO. .. .. .. Which is a completely false statement to make"Then it is completely natural and shall not be illegal. "Just because something is natural it doesnt mean it should be legal dipstick. .. .. You know what else is natural? BEARS.
Resolved: The US government should ban love since its a class 1 narcotic

What is love Oh baby, don't hurt me Don't hurt me no more Oh, baby don't hurt me Don't hurt me no more What is love Yeah Oh, I don't know why you're not there I give you my love, but you don't care So what is right and what is wrong Gimme a sign What is love Oh baby, don't hurt me Don't hurt me no more What is love Oh baby, don't hurt me Don't hurt me no more Whoa whoa whoa,oooh oooh Whoa whoa whoa, oooh oooh Oh, I don't know, what can I do What else can I say, it's up to you I know we're one, just me and you I can't go on What is love Oh baby, don't hurt me Don't hurt me no more What is love Oh baby, don't hurt me Don't hurt me no more Whoa whoa whoa, oooh oooh Whoa whoa whoa, oooh oooh What is love, oooh, oooh, oooh What is love, oooh, oooh, oooh What is love Oh baby, don't hurt me Don't hurt me no more Don't hurt me Don't hurt me I want no other, no other lover This is your life, our time When we are together, I need you forever Is it love What is love Oh baby, don't hurt me Don't hurt me no more What is love Oh baby, don't hurt me Don't hurt me no more (oooh,oooh) What is love Oh baby, don't hurt me Don't hurt me no more What is love Oh baby, don't hurt me Don't hurt me no more (oooh,oooh) What is love? source: http://www.lyricsondemand.com... I just provided the full song (What is love? by Haddaway) Main Argument. -As you can see in the song. It repeatedly asks, "What is love?" -It also is saying "Oh baby, don't hurt me." My analysis: The narrator is asking for love. Since love heals the soul. Love will not hurt, but only relieve the tension with his "baby". Love has no negative side effects like meth or heroine. We don't call meth an emotion. We don't call heroine an emotion. Heroine and meth unlock the emotion. They unlock love unnaturally. That is why it is bad is because it is being unlocked unnaturally. But if love is unlocked naturally by your definition it should be justified. "Love is defined as that feeling you get in your heart when you see or think of someone spectacularly beautiful...." Conclusion. Then it is completely natural and shall not be illegal. Since one cannot control the self emotions like love. That's why adrenaline rushes aren't illegal. :) thanks
Resolved: The US government should ban love since its a class 1 narcotic

The Resolution is pretty straightforward, I believe that the US government should ban love since it is a class 1 narcotic. Love is defined as that feeling you get in your heart when you see or think of someone spectacularly beautiful. .. . Class 1 narcotics are defined as Schedule 1 Narcotics that are highly illegal in the US, such as Meth or Heroin: . http://en.wikipedia.org...
resolved: that the death penalty is a good thing

Elie Wiesel once said, ""I do not believe any civilized society should be at the service of death. I don't think it's human to become an agent of the Angel of Death." There are multiple factors to be accounted for when deciding whether or not the death penalty is a good thing. I negate the resolution "the death penalty is a good thing" and therefore believe that it is not beneficial and ultimately should not be practiced. I will introduce my reasoning below. First and foremost, lethal injection is much more expensive than life in prison. Executions cost about 2 million dollars per person whereas life in prison is about 500,000 dollars. Neither one is particularly preferable in terms of cost. However, executions are about four times more expensive than life in prison. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... Second, death sentences are handed down arbitrarily, not in a fair manner. Serial killers such as the infamous Gary Ridgway in Seattle who admitted killing 48 prostitutes and runaways got life in prison. An "angel of death" nurse in NJ who admitted killing 17 people got life. Meanwhile, mentally ill and impoverished murderers who could not afford good lawyers and did not warrant much media attention were given the death penalty. In Alabama, David Hocker was executed after a one-day trial. His mental illness was not sufficiently described to the jury. Alabama also executed a 74-year-old man (James Hubbard) who had been on DR for 27 years and was beset by medical problems which would have probably soon caused his death by natural means: cancer, high blood pressure and the early stages of Alzheimers. In Texas, a man with schizophrenia was executed (Kelsey Patterson) even after the Board of Pardons and Paroles recommended clemency after learning of his time spent in mental hospitals and his unintelligible rambling. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... Third, the death penalty is not a deterrent of crime contrary to what many people believe, in fact crime rates have risen. In fact, the murder rate in the US is 6 times that of Britain and 5 times that of Australia. Neither country has the death penalty. Texas has twice the murder rate of Wisconsin, a state that doesn't have the death penalty. Texas and Oklahoma have historically executed the most number of death row inmates, yet in 2003 their state murder rates increased, and both have murder rates higher than the national average. With the proof from the aforementioned reasons, the death penalty is not a good thing.
The Trojans were the "good guys" of the Iliad

As a valient defender of the Trojans in my high school history class, I unfortunately accept defending the Greeks for this debate. I accept on the basis of mere ethical consideration of the two sides. I firmly believe that there is on absolute right or wrong. Despite this underlying conviction, the traditional logic literature uses to diffrientiate the good guys from the bad guys will be used by me for this debate. My case will mostly consist of examples from other stories(where protagonists and antagonists are clearly defined) to prove the "goodness" of the Greek heroes, and the adversarial role the Trojans played in the story. The other portion of my case will explain how the traditional conception of morality in our world still justifies the role of the Greeks as the good guys.
The Trojans were the "good guys" of the Iliad

I'm looking for an opponent familiar with the story of The Iliad. Whether you've read it cover to cover, remember exposure to it from school, watched Troy, or even just read the Wikipedia summary is all fine by me. If you would like to accept, please say so in the comments, as I'm fed up with trolls and forfeiters. As Pro, I will be arguing that in Homer's epic, the Trojans, who serve as the antagonists of the story, are the real "good guys", with more sympathetic characters and a more understandable cause to be fighting for. I will defend the actions of characters like Hector, Priam, Aeneas, and Paris. Con, naturally, is siding with the Greeks, or Achaeans as Homer calls them, and will defend the likes of Agamemnon, Odysseus, Ajax, and Achilles.
man made global warming was probably having a significant impact on our environment

I've never heard any of the solar flare or volcano theorists out there you're talking about... The last time I asked someone for the evidence they trusted that convinced them of man made global warming, they sent me to a report (Vitousek 1997) in which they talked about the increase in human carbon emissions. When it came to the method section, it said, in essence, that they found this out by CALCULATING TEMPERATURES and going from there. This is what global warming theory is based on- itself. It's a circular argument. You can't assume that the temperature changes you have observed are caused by carbon emissions and then try to prove it with estimates of how much carbon we released if we assume the theory. An argument cannot rely on it's conclusion as a premise or it has no value. I'm sure there are more arguments out there, but they all seem to ignore one of the CARDINAL RULES of science: Correlation is not causation. Causation can only be established by experiment, preferably with a statistically significant number of trials. Without actually having a separate, controlled group of earths to experiment on with global warming, you cannot make assertions about causes and consider them science. When people point to "But computer models say..." they ignore the nature of computers. Computers have vast data processing capabilities, but they can only compute based on preprogrammed premises. When a computer tells you x amount of global warming will occur, it operates based on the theory programmed into it. If that theory is not confirmed by separate experimentation, the computer's printouts are unverified bunk. "Prove me wrong." You are Pro. It is your job to prove yourself right. Not the other way around.
Heptadic Signature Proves Extreme Intelligence Behind The Authorship of the Bible

(1) Which Greek manuscript text are you using? Majority Text? A particular codex? (1A) The original, penned by the Holy Ghost, later known as Textus Receptus. (2) Where did you get this information? (2A) Studies of Ivan Panin, although it's open for anyone with library access to research himself. (3) Where is a geneology or "generations" in Mark? (3A) The genealogy in Matthew contains about 30 constrictions, when I mentioned the book of Mark, I never said it has genealogies, what I said was that it has 75 constrictions -- comparing it to Matthew which only has 30 -- it's irrelevant whether it's a genealogy or not, it's simply that a text with so many constrictions is impossible to write by mere human beings. In fact, people usually give up after 2. (4) What do you mean "Only 7 words shall not be nouns?" (4A) Seven words in the text shall not be nouns, others shall. (5) Once I have this basic information, we can begin the debate. (5A) There you go. Apologize for not including, I assumed that since this information is so well known and available on the internet for those who bother to search it up, it would not be an issue. Hope we can begin.
Heptadic Signature Proves Extreme Intelligence Behind The Authorship of the Bible

Since this is a 5 Round debate with few rules, I'd like to spend this round clarifying a few things.To my opponent:Which Greek manuscript text are you using? Majority Text? A particular codex?Where did you get this information?Where is a geneology or "generations" in Mark?What do you mean "Only 7 words shall not be nouns?"Once I have this basic information, we can begin the debate.
Heptadic Signature Proves Extreme Intelligence Behind The Authorship of the Bible

Many of you have heard that there is no evidence God is behind the Bible, that it's a book written by sheep herders with fancy imagination, despite it's historical accuracy and length of time spanning thousands of years. But today I am here to show you that yes, it has been possible to prove that God is behind the Bible for quite a few decades now, and you will discover this undeniable evidence today. In order to show you what this is about, I will assign you a challenge. The challenge is to write a fictional genealogy -- but here is the catch, it has to fulfill all of the following criteria: 1. The number of words must be divisible by 7 evenly. 2. The number of letters must also be divisible by 7. 3. The number of vowels and the number of consonants must be divisible by 7. 4. The number of words that begin with a vowel must be divisible by 7. 5. The number of words that begin with a consonant must be divisible by 7. 6. The number of words that occur more than once must be divisible by 7. 7. The number of words that occur in more than one form must be divisible by 7. 8. The number of words that occur in only one form shall be divisible by 7. 9. The number of nouns shall be divisible by 7. 10. Only 7 words shall not be nouns. 11. The number of names in the genealogy shall be divisible by 7. 12. Only 7 other kinds of nouns are permitted. 13. The number of male names shall be divisible by 7. 14. The number of generations shall be 21, also divisible by 7. Seems impossible to write in flexible English and computers of the 21st century? This is only 14 restrictions, there are a total of 75 restrictions in the book of Mark, written without any computers, in a language much less flexible than English, two thousand years ago! So there you go.
Heptadic Signature Proves Extreme Intelligence Behind The Authorship of the Bible

You specified the Gospel of Mark as your special Gospel, so I was confusedRegardless, I will argue against this based on three things:1. Changes in the Greek Text2. Subjective Division3. Purposeful of Design1) Changes in the Greek TextThere have been hundreds of significant changes in the Greek text of a passage.Here's one case study for the Gospel of Mark:Mark 16:9-20Eusebius said: "One who athetises that pericope would say that it [i.e., a verse from the ending of Mark] is not found in all copies of the gospel according to Mark: accurate copies end their text of the Marcan account with the words of the young man whom the women saw, and who said to them: “'Do not be afraid; it is Jesus the Nazarene that you are looking for, etc. …' ”, after which it adds: “And when they heard this, they ran away, and said nothing to anyone, because they were frightened." That is where the text does end, in almost all copies of the gospel according to Mark. What occasionally follows in some copies, not all, would be extraneous, most particularly if it contained something contradictory to the evidence of the other evangelists." (1)Theodore of Mopsuestia shows no knowledge of the addition, despite his early fifth century life:" All the evangelists narrated to us His resurrection from the dead... The blessed Luke, however, who is also the writer of a Gospel, added that He ascended into heaven so that we should know where He is after His resurrection" (2)Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, our oldest complete records of Mark, do not have this passageThis is not just in Mark 16, but all over the New Testament, we have many, many changes in the Greek text. That would mess up a numerological count, wouldn't you think? 2) Subjective CountingIvan adds other problems to the mix: he picks and chooses what he wants to divide. For instance, he chooses Genesis 1:1 as a case study. Why? Verses were not added to the Bible until the middle ages, and the logical flow of the Hebrew does not cut the idea at that point. For another instance, Ivan said to notice that letters in Greek are used a certain number of times... but he does it at random. Alpha - Beta, Gamma - Delta, Epsilon - Zeta, ...skip Eta... Theta to... Rho? Sigma to... Chi? This is a random counting. No rhyme. No reason. He feels free to skip letters or group them in ways that happen to come up at numbers he wants. That is dishonest to say the least. (3)3) Purposeful Design Some parts of the Bible were perfectly designed to have divisions of 7 in them. The Matthew Genealogy is a good place to start. Matthew's genealogy has 14 x 14 x 14 x14, reaching 42 generations. However, Matthew omits several generations, compared to Chronicles, for that to occur. Purposeful (and wrong) designSources:1) Eusebius, Gospel Problems and Solutions to Marinus2) Theodore, Commentary on Nicene Creed3) http://www.telusplanet.net...
Abortion

As we come to a close in this debate we must examin this debate as a whole. First we can see that my opponent has dropped all arguments regarding the benefits of abortion from protecting the mother, the potential child, the life of the mother, and the economic safety of others. All of these things were dropped and they were the only advantages brought up in this debate. These arguments were dropped. You should be voting on this topic since it affects more than the one person and affects a greater number of people. My opponent constantly harps on saving the lives of the fetus, but how can he say he's "Pro-Life" when he sentences the mother to death, poverty, and threatens the lives of others by birthing unwanted children who resort to crime in the US. These things affect and kill more people. My opponent has dropped all Constitutionally and US legal arguments on the regards to abortion. This is the second part that he only argues murder, but how can this be a crime when the fetus doesn't have rights form the US or anyone until birth. The US Constiution and the US Supreme Court have shown that this issue is settled and the fetus, which is NOT alive, has no rights and the rights of the mother trump this. "Human life only end with the cessation of ALL vital functions of the human body including heartbeat, brain activity, and breathing. "Here my opponent makes this argument in the last round. If that's the case, he then goes to the argument that it begins when developement begins. So which is correct? Does it begin with the beginning of developement or heart beat? If it's the first then you could argue that drinking, as it kills blood cells, is murder since you are killing a part of a human that can develope. If it's the later, my opponent has even concieved that this doesn't occur until later, which means that life does not begin at conception and thus abortion is not immorral. Whichever one, my opponent's arguments are invalid and disprove themsleves. Now I'm not going to go and respond to all of my opponent's attacks on my videos from youtube as there's really no reason to go through and refute the sources themselves since it would be a waste of debate time. Even I have yet to make every single argument from these videos which makes doing so not reasonable. I would like to highlight that my opponent has personally attacked me in this debate by stating that I make things that are not common sense or logical fallacies without pointing out which ones or why. This is simply an ad hom attack against me for no reason.