BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion is a SIN!

Could you please write in English so I have chance to understand your argument? Since I don't know you argument, I cannot reply to it. But, I will instead continue with my own opinion; that abortion is a sin. In God's eyes, an unborn child isn't just a collection of tissues or a ball of meat - it is a living human being. Therefore, if you choose to get an abortion, you're killing a Child of God. Life begins at conception! You're murdering an innocent human being. How can anyone believe that it is okay to do that? There's only one, who's mighty enough to decide whether it should be life or death; and that is our God. Only he can decide. So if you choose to get an abortion, you're pretending you're God, you're taking another persons life in your own hands without the right to do it!
Abortion is a SIN!

Resolvi tomar para mim este debate n"o para dizer que o aborto " a "nica sa"da para uma gravidez indesejada, mas para defender o direito de escolha de cada indiv"duo, principalmente as mulheres que s"o duramente criticadas por n"o levar a gravidez ao fim ou por dizer que n"o vai seguir at" o fim em tal ato. A religi"o assumi um papel t"o cr"tico em rela""o ao aborto que coloca a pr"pria cren"a de uma determinada pessoa contra ela, ou seja, manipula principalmente o cristianismo. E o pior de tudo " que o cristianismo promete tudo e n"o realiza nada. Ser" que uma religi"o como essa merece ter tanta credibilidade?
Abortion is a SIN!

Abortion is a sin, and it shouldn't be legal to get an abortion. It is pure murder of an innocent person who hasn't even lived before their life is taken away from them. True Christians should never get an abortion. It is against our religion, it's against our Holy God's words. If you get an abortion, you're taking things in your own hand, instead of trusting that God will do what has to be done. Instead of trusting God with you life, you're letting the Devil tempt you to think that abortion is the right answer!
Same-Sex Marriage Should be Legal in the U.S.

1. Economic benefits is not the main reason because over 72% of marriages have left couples in debt of more than $35,000 that is only payed off in 44% of those instances according to an Economist article dated on June 18, 2010. 2. Marriage is defined as a legally or formally recognized union of a man and a women as partners of a relationship though the connotation my seem to show love that is not what marriage technically is and therefore is not offensive 3. It is not unconstitutional because in the 14th amendment it does not specify who has the right to marry and this is shown in the Zablocki vs. Redhali case in which the jury found that the constitution is too vague in who has the right to marry and what is the right to marry. 4. It does not create a family but a naturally sterile union because the natural family helps with the upbringing of children which benefits the state. We need to do what is best for the nation and to do that we need to keep the normal nuclear family to help in the development of country.
Same-Sex Marriage Should be Legal in the U.S.

1. In today's society, the main reason for marriage is for the economic benefits and married couples get benefits to help them in their life. So, by restricting marriage you are helping to discourage economic growth and prosperity. 2. Marriage is something to help show how much two people love each other, so by preventing same-sex couples form marrying, then you are saying that they are not as in love as other couples, which is offensive. 3. By saying that same-sex couples cannot marry, then you are saying that they are not equal to others, which is unconstitutional.
trump

In my view Donald Trump would be an effective president for the USA. His generally hands off approach to world wide conflicts is in my view a positive thing. Yes he is negative about Russia, China and Iran but it is fair to say these three states do not currently have good relations with the USA anyway, so his policy towards them is no significant change to the previous administration. It is also fair to say these three countries have acted unethically in a variety of ways such as human rights abuses and acting with military aggression. It's fair to say they deserve some criticism. The border wall with Mexico is in my view a great idea. Illegal immigration is a key problem for the USA and if Mexico could be pursuaded to contribute towards the cost of its construction that would be an excellent economic and political result for the USA. What I think makes trump the strongest presidential candidate is the fact that he is not a career politician and has had an enormously succesful career in business. It is clear trump knows how to run a business and knows how a governments actions affect business first hand. Trump is one of the cleverist business brains in the US and surely tapping into that knowledge would be great for the USA. The fact the economy is in a perilous position with national debt and the national budget deficits at record high levels shows the current economic approach is not working. Trump will look at things from an economic point of view not a political point of view. He would also bring in a fresh approach to politics with his say it as it is style.
Same-sex Marriage Should be Legalized

Just to make this clear, the main point of this debate will be to evaluate the merit of both sides' arguments. This debate isn't concerned with if the government can legalize same-sex marriage, it's only focused on the reasons for both the affirmative and negative sides of this debate. With that being said, the first round will be for acceptance, the second round will be for presenting arguments, and the final round will be for rebuttal. This debate will also use the following terms as guiding points for the debate. Marriage:the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. (Merriam Webster) Same-sex marriage: the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.
Same-sex Marriage Should be Legalized

As the rules both of us agreed upon state, this round is for rebuttals. IRRELEVANT ARGUMENTS In my opponent's round two arguments, he made several irrelevant arguments. 1. Adoption The first one was to claim that homosexuals could possibly make good adoptive parents. I agree, but that's no valid reason to legalize gay marriage. No one needs to be married in older to adopt someone. Any single person can adopt. And once you adopt a child, you are free to decide via living will who would have custody of your child if something would happen to you. 2. Social Security benefits You don't have to be married to receive Social Security benefits. You can designate anyone you want to be your beneficiary. No marriage needed. The same can be said for Verterans and Military benefit recipients. You decide who gets them. 3. Hospital visitation You don't have to be married to visit someone in hospital. The patient can have whomever they desire. ANY ARGUMENT THAT ALSO CONTRADICTS YOUR CLAIM IS AN INVALID ARGUMENT My opponent also has provided an argument that could be used to support a kind of marriage he rejected in the last round (group marriage). Here it is: Gay couples may experience less distress if their relationship were legally recognized as a marriage. Well, the same could be said for group marriages, but my opponent rejects the idea that they should be legalized, so this argument is therefore invalid. CONCLUSION Most of my opponent's arguments for gay marriage have been shown to be irrelevant. Any gay person can receive the benefits mentioned without being married to their partner. Therefore, the government has no reason to create a new right/law. Secondly, the only other argument made by my opponent has been shown to be invalid since it could be used against his case. With all my opponent's arguments refuted, the resolution is negated.
abortion is wrong

My opponent states that abortion is wrong because it "can kill many babies." I hold this statement to be false. Abortion does not kill many babies. Abortion terminates pregnancies. It is even inaccurate to say that abortion kills a fetus because a fetus was never alive in the first place. Even the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a fetus as "an unborn or unhatched vertebrae" [1]. Science at the present does not know exactly when a fetus becomes a baby. We do know several facts however. 1. The fetus cannot felt pain for the first 24 weeks during its formation because its brain is un(der)developed [2]. 2. Although evidence detailing when a fetus' heartbeat begins is inconclusive, scientific estimates place the time around four to six weeks after conception [3]. An organism without a heartbeat is considered not alive by most standards. So again, an abortion is not ending a life but a pregnancy. How does my opponent feel about abortions in the case of rape? The Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network reports that, in 2004-2005, 64,080 women were raped (this of course applies only to reported rapes - many rapes and other unwanted sexual advances go unreported). They also report that around 5% of these rapes resulted in pregnancies - that's about 3,204 pregnancies [4]. Should these women have to bear the lifelong psychological trauma for the sake of something not even considered alive? Before continuing, it is important to differentiate between trimesters. Although I am arguing against the resolution, I do not have to justify abortion in each and every case where it occurs. I only have to support its legality in certain instances. As such, I do not have to defend third trimester/late term abortions. For this argument, I am supporting a woman's right to get an abortion during the first, and arguably even second, trimester. As a final point, my opponent claims that the amount of women who have died during abortions make up the population of Spain. My opponent cites no source, and I find this a difficult claim to believe. World Population Statistics place Spain's population at around 47.27 million people [5]. The National Organization for Women explains that abortion is 11 times safer than childbirth, and that abortion's death rate (on women) is now 0.6 per 100,00 as opposed to childbirth, which is 8 per 100,000 [6]. Thus my opponent's argument is false. In fact, more women's lives are saved by having abortions. This makes sense. There are cases where having a child endangers the life of the mother. In such cases, I argue that abortion should also be permissible. I believe it makes more sense to defend a current, existing life rather than a potential one. I look forward to my opponent's responses in the final round! [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.theguardian.com... [3] http://www.baby2see.com... [4] http://www.rainn.org... [5] http://www.worldpopulationstatistics.com... [6] http://www.now.org...
My little pony is for all ages

I dont even want to debate this because of how sickening this is. My little pony is a child's show. In society people outrule older men who watch these shows. Even older women who watch these shows are more on the crazy side. I dont even know how the actors are being put up to this. MLP is a terrible show. It has no plot at all. It is made fun of because it is terrible. Adventure time or Regular show have a plot and make sense. Rainbows and Ponies dont
Let history not be the only judge: an arguement for communism.

The purpose of this debate? To argue on theft, slavery and injustice of this so called dream called communism. The dreams and aspiration of one man, who argued for the abolishing of private property, or theft, the need for workers to produce more to the lazy, or slavery, and the need for the common working man to take up arms on the "once and all evil class, called the bourgeoisie", or injustice. This debate will go nowhere if common terms are not defined: communism is defined as a classless stateless money-less community that would self organize itself. Therefore, we are not to use any totalitarian caricatures of "communism" in this debate, as many of them did not consider themselves communists (or in quite the same way, did not consider their state communist). We shall be relying on pure communist "facts", or in other words, lies written by Karl Marx and other of his so called "comrades". My position: communism destroys the aspiration of the working class, and seduces it into an unneeded unjust dream. As history will not be the judge of this, I shall rely on purely Marxist doctrines. Thanks.
Let history not be the only judge: an arguement for communism.

The purpose of this debate like, like the many before it, is to argue the principles of communism and capitalism, and hell fascism if you got a mind for it. I will be arguing communisms case. As the title suggests, I will not be relying only on history to make my case and, I hope you will not simply quote stats about stalin and Mao at me, although I welcome you to include them, as I am more than capable of explaining then. I have no real mind for format. I would simply ask, first state your general position, as I shall, and then we shall get into justification in the rest of the debate. Thanks.
Tornadoes are God's farts.

Response to Pro's 10 reasons:1. Tornadoes happen BECAUSE of wind, like swirlies. Their are not wind itself, like pharts.2. People fly up in the air for all sorts of reasons, but only tornadoes have this affect on everything, like swirls in a beverage.3. The reason we can't drink tornadoes is because we're not God, but obviously GOD can drink a tornado!4. Torandoes DO come in different flavors: Trailer park, city, field, forest, farm, ranch, etc.5. Again, tornadoes are not wind, and they don't break the way pharts do.6. Asked and answered.7. Some people don't like mixed drinks, so this is irrelevant.8. Tornadoes are limited to storm systems the way swirls are limited to the glass.9. Swirlies behave the same way tornadoes to. They start off weak, get strong, then get weak again. Pharts aren't like that.10. Swirlies DO do damage. Have you ever seen a tornado???Defense of my 10 reasonsMy ten reasons are obviously superior to Pro's ten reasons, and he negates them with mere assertions. For example, his answer to number 2 is "No, they're not," and that's it. Some of his answers make no sense at all. For example, he says God's pharts are liquids. But that's like saying God's circles are square. A phart is, by definition, not a liquid. Pro is confusing a phart with a shart. While related, they are not the same thing. One can be entertaining; the other is never entertaining. Pro claims that God says, "Excuse me," but we can't hear it because his voice is too high pitched. But as everybody knows, God's voice is very low pitched and audible. It has been compared to the sound of thunder, which rumbles as we all know. Pro's response to number nine is not even a response; it's a question.ConclusionPro is trying to be silly, but this is a serious issue. I proved beyond all reason that tornadoes are the swirlies in God's beverages; they are not God's pharts. Pro's position is theologically incorrect, and even dangerous. As a theistic atheist, he should consider changing his mind.
Tornadoes are God's farts.

I've explained that I feel that Tornadoes are the product of God taking a trip to tootington. I may be an atheist, but even I have to admit that God exists. Con seems to think that Tornadoes are swirlies in God's drink, and he made up a bunch of reasons why. I'll counter them here:1. And people usually have trumping streaks too. Just be in a room with my mum for a minute and you'll know what I mean.2. Hang on, no they're not.3. This supports my theory too because solid objects fall out of bums too.4. God is majestic: he can do that sort of thing.5. God's farts are liquid, I think. It is philosophical fact.6. God is majestic: his farts smell lovely. You'll have to get sucked up by a tornado one day.7. As I've said, solid objects fall out of bums.8. God does say 'excuse me' but it's just that God's voice is so high-pitched that only dogs can hear it, that explains why they're always flipping mental beasts. Either that, or God is one rude dude.9. How do you know? Have you ever tried?10. I get blown away to all sorts of places when a family member does one. This means Con l-l-l-l-l-l-loses. Here are my ten:1. Tornadoes are windy, which is like a fart.2. Tornadoes are all swirly and make things fly up into the air, and I fly up into the air whenever some gas bag breaks wind.3. You can drink a drink, but you can't drink a tornado (trust me, I've tried).4. If Tornadoes were swirlies in God's drink, then you'd get Tornadoes in all sorts of flavours. But you only get plain.5. The phrase 'break wind' means to fart, and tornadoes are wind.6. It's a known fact that God trumps, and if tornadoes aren't God's farts, then what are?7. People hate farts and people hate tornadoes. People like good ol' swirlies.8. Swirlies don't have much space to move, but farts do.9. Swirlies don't last long, farts linger for absolutely ages.10. Swirlies don't do damage: farts do. I thank you.
Tornadoes are God's farts.

Thank you for coming to tonight's debate. I hope you will find this debate to be both short and enlightening.KingDebater has invoked the universally recognized premise that if X can't be explained, then God did it. Since he and I agree on this premise, it should not be an area of contention between us.The only question for the purposes of this debate is exactly what God does when a tornado happens. Are they really pharts, as Pro thinks, or are they merely the swirlies in God's beverage, as I think?I submit that they are the swirlies in God's beverage, and not pharts, for the following reasons:1. Because if you stick a spoon in a cup of hot chocolate, it will make a swirly. Sometimes, it'll make two swirlies, which is consistent with the fact that in most storm systems that contain tornadoes, there are usually more than one.2. Because tornadoes are made of liquid. A cloud forms when vapor in the sky condenses into water droplets, and tornadoes come from clouds.3. Because tornadoes are associated with solid objects being thoroughly mixed and blended, the same way the powder in Carnation instant hot chocolate gets mixed up when you use a spoon to stir it into hot water.4. It has not been established that pharts actually cause swirlies, whereas stirring beverages does.5. Pharts are gaseous compounds, whereas tornadoes are liquid mixtures.6. Pharts stink, but tornadoes don't.7. Pharts are not used to stir up debris the way particles are mixed into beverages.8. When people phart, they say, "Excuse me," but they don't say "excuse me" when they mix their drinks. When tornadoes happen, God never says, "excuse me."9. You can light a phart on fire, but you cannot light a tornado on fire.10. Tornadoes have been known to rip through neighborhoods where people live, and it is much more polite to stir your beverage among people than to phart among people.There you have it. Ten good reasons to prefer my explanation over Pro's.
Tornadoes are God's farts.

Tornadoes are a weather condition that nobody can explain. This is because Tornadoes are God's farts, and God "Hasn’t been scientifically explained yet!". It all makes perfect sense when you think about it. Tornadoes come from the sky, and that's where God lives."Experience the divine trumps of the lord!" I hear the preaches cry "Allow the blessed farts of God almighty to carry your special soul into hoppin' heaven!"You see, even God needs somebody to pull his finger at one point or another, so we should not laugh like hyenas at the concept of God blowing one out once in a while.So that's what I want to debate today, whether Tornadoes are God's farts. I hope for a good debate.I thank you.
Creation makes the most sense

Unfortunately, my opponent fails to grasp the concept of "burden of proof." I recommend he read this, which describes the fallacy that he is committing: http://www.nizkor.org... He claims that he "see[s] creation all around" him. Well, then he ought to provide evidence that this essence of "creation" does, indeed, empirically exist. Personally, I have never seen "creation all around me," and I am curious as to what that would even entail. The opponent can continue to believe in God on the same unfalsifiable basis that I believe in my invisible hobbit on Neptune — but that, by no means, makes our beliefs rational or justified. It is rational to believe in an entity's existence when evidence is presented for its existence; until that happens, the burden of proof is not met and we opt to not believe in the entity's existence. I cannot disprove the idea that God created the universe — just like my opponent cannot disprove the existence of the invisible hobbit on Neptune. If we were to debate over the existence of the hobbit, I would need to provide evidence or else there would be no rational basis for my opponent to believe in the hobbit; such is the nature of the burden of proof. In conclusion, Creationists carry the burden of proof and until they meet it, believing in Creationism is illogical. Instead of attempting to meet his burden of proof, the opponent chose to fallaciously pass the burden of proof onto the non-believer, and that is why he lost the debate.Thank you.
Creation makes the most sense

Thanks for the replyI think you have made it clear that you are unwilling, or unable, to provide any evidence against creation. Nor are you prepared to provide any evidence that the universe and life on earth came into existence without a creator. The burden of proof rests on the atheist because the proof of creation is demonstrated in the universe and intelligent life. You cannot get life from non-life, nor can you you get intelligence from non-intelligence.I'm just asking for a tiny shred of evidence. Explain your evidence that shows us that life on earth was the result of non-intelligence. I've given atheists so many chances to present their evidence, but they always refuse. I see creation all around me, so I have all the proof I need. Where is your evidence that life on earth was not designed by a higher intelligence?I guess the debate is over. Without evidence, your opinion holds no weight. Evidence is what matters.Thanks for the debate though.Peace