BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Men should be allowed into lesbian bars.

I have a number of lesbian friends and I would like to have more, so some of my mates and I went to the Candy Bar in Soho, which is a lesbian bar. http://www.thecandybar.co.uk... However, we were refused entry on the grounds that we were men, even though I explained that our intentions were entirely honourable and we would be in now way offended by the sight of women engaging in sexual activity with one another. I believe that the refusal of the bar's management to grant admittance to men amounts to sexual discrimination. Women are allowed to go into gay bars so men should be allowed into lesbian bars. I await my opponent's response.
Death

I was hoping some time would be spent on further clarfication but alas, that did not happen. We see that the resolution stands clearly negated.1) Indeed Death is not fun2) Death is cost prohibitive.3) The second death sucks worse than the first death. My opponent in the last round cites a weird website with an exclusivity doctrine. They teach they are the only source of truth and that all other Christians are 'false religions'. They include Lutherans, Episcopalians and even Catholics. My opponent claims that the select few spoken of at that Lord's Coming should be interpreted as the ALL people. My opponent offers no such reason to interpret scripture this way. I have already cited the scriptures of the assumption of Enoch and Elijah straight up to heaven. I have cited the scriptures at the mount of Transfiguration where Moses and Elijah both come down out of heaven, dresssed in their 'overcomers' white robes and minister to Jesus. These have gone unrefuted. Clearly a superior interpretation is to recognize there are two groups being discussed. We also saw the saved souls in heaven in Revelation Chapter 4. I could go on but my opponent must address these issues. So the resolution is clearly negated. Additionally we see that my opponents concerns of ALL is only a select few.
Death

To the negation of the resolution:I am extremely against death, specifically ‘good’ peoples death. Some clear reasons:1) It is not ‘fun’. See Video as Evidence: . http://www.youtube.com...2) It is cost prohibitive. [1]3) Even if you believe going to heaven is the result of the first death, I am legitimately against the ‘second death’ referred to in the Bible[2] This is just to name a few and want to clearly point out that I have no problem with evil peoples deaths. That is not within the scope of ‘death’ as posed by the resolution. The resolution is clearly negated. Now I do want as a side note to address the first round concerns of my opponent. - First, my opponent does not believe that people go to heaven upon death. This would be incorrect. We know that Enoch and Elijah both went directly to Heaven. We also know that Moses and Elijah both in their white robes came back down from Heaven to minister to Jesus on the mount of transfiguration. It is properly understood that Holy or faithful believers go to heaven upon death. The dead that are brought up to the judgment seat are those in the intermediate state that did not live Holy/faithful lives. - Second, my opponent asserts that the faithful being in heaven would not work. How does he know this? Is there a space limit in heaven? Is God not capable of creating a place to house the faithful? He would have to expand this. I do not mind discussing my opponent’s assertions or the resolution if my opponent would not mind clarifying for either in the next round. I am hoping for a clear assertion to rephrase the resolution or affirm the resolution. Good Luck! [1] . http://www.nfda.org... [2] . http://www.biblegateway.com...
The Bible is never wrong.

I would like to have a debate with someone who believes that the Bible is inerrant; i.e. incapable of being wrong. Here's the introduction to my argument:The Bible was written by different people with differing perspectives over a very long period of time. Naturally, the Bible is full of differing (and even conflicting) messages about right/wrong, theology, history, etc. Serious study of the Bible reveals that it is riddled with contradictions and inaccuracies. Much of what the Bible teaches is just plain wrong: morally wrong, scientifically wrong, historically wrong, theologically wrong. Do you disagree with me? Consider accepting this debate! Provide a short introduction to your argument in Round #1, summarizing your position or beliefs re: the Bible. - No insults / ad hominems - Please remember the topic of the debate
is being book smart better then being street smart

now I'm not saying that we should not try to be book smart I'm saying that we should just take more time out of day to learn our street smarts. Book smarts can only get you so far in life before we have to start useing our steet smart. Now you may be mad at me but hey it's true and we all know it. Why do you think polaricans are so good it is because they know how to please the public and they use there street smarts to do that. Principles at schools have to have street smarts so they can tell what kids are saying when they talk in code. Also words are like a double sided sword there are second meanings to a lot of words; you need to have street smarts to know them
is being book smart better then being street smart

Trust me im not saying street smarts are not important. im just saying that book smarts are needed more then street smarts. yes book smarts wont be able to understand some things that street smarts can but with book smarts we could find better and more efficient ways to keep our country and the world safer then ever thought possible. Street smarts does allow us to have a much more open mind when it comes to none educational matters but we are born with the understanding of both. But encouraging this generation and the next to try to gain a better education and become part of that people that have book smarts with not only open up new ideas to try and more efficient ways of improving out societies but it will also encourage others to try to be better and will encourage them to try to make a diffence.
is being book smart better then being street smart

You dont need street smarts to be able to find a hidden meaning behind what anyone says. Book smarts just allow us to have a more developed way of thinking, We would be able to find the deepest meaning in anything anyone said, We would be a much more developed and educated society. Not having book smarts would crush our society into the ground. We as people wouldn't have been able to create medicine to help with sicknesses or antidotes to diseases. We would only know how to run away from those kinds of situations. We wouldn't be able to clean up radiation leaks or oil spills which would in the end kill out the entire human race and every plant and animal. Our planet would die because we wouldn't be able to clean up our messes. Street smarts don't allow us to do that.
is being book smart better then being street smart

yes this is true but on the under hand without street smarts cops would not be able to understand what drug dealers and users are saying. like if someone went up to a a book smart cop that did not have street smarts and yelled i have some good stuff the cop would then presume that he just meant some good thing but not that he had pot on him and was going to or had already had smoked it. this is why street smarts are more important to have.
Resolved: Religion is an overall benefit to modern society.

Thank you for accepting. I look forward to a productive and intelligent debate. 1) Religious people are more likely to give to charity: According to The Chronicle of Philanthropy, 65 percent of the people who claim a religion give to charity. Conversly, 56 percent of people who do not claim a religion give to charity. It's about a 10% difference, but that is statistically significant and cannot be ignored as an important point. [1] Certain religions even have mandations to give to the poor. Several verses in the New Testament teach that Christians should give to the poor. Muslims have Zakat as one of the five pillars of their faith, which is a teaching that the rich should cleanse themselves of some of their money and give it to the poor. 2) Institutions: Faith based institutions bring several signficant benefits. A) Catholic Hospitals: Catholic hospitals make up a little over quarter of the world's health care. They are all non profit, and they never turn anyone away. These institutions represent a significant part of society, and they are an overall positive social force. [2] B) Faith-based schools: Faith-based schools are actually more advanced than public schools in a lot of areas. First of all, faith-based schools have greater overall diversity than public schools do, enrolling proportionally similar percentages of ethnicities in comparison to the U.S. population. [See pages 15-17 on source 3] One of the second significant benefits is that faith-based schools tend to be better for historically disadvantaged students, scoring at grade levels beyond their public school peers [see page 24 in source 3]: 1.7 grade levels ahead for black students 2.5 grade levels ahead for hispanic students 1.6 grade levels ahead for low-income students Judging by the evidence, it's easy to conclude that faith-based schools are actually better for the population than the public schools are. 3) Religion tends to improve people's health and happiness: Catherine Sanderson, psychology professor at Amherst College, says that religious beliefs "give people a sense of meaning," and "it gives a sense of well being or comfort." While she goes on to say that, of course, these feelings aren't completely unique to religion, it is still important to realize that religion carries these benefits inherently. She says that the benefits religion provides are important to a person's emotional and physical health. [4] Sources: [1] https://philanthropy.com... [2] http://www.catholicnewsagency.com... [3] http://www.amcsc.org... [4] https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Resolved: Religion is an overall benefit to modern society.

1st round - acceptance2nd round - opening arguments (con may provide rebuttals)3rd round - rebuttals4th round - summary/closingI will be arguing that religion's benefits are more significant than the costs to modern society. Con will argue that the costs of religion are more significant than its benefits.Rules:1) If you troll you better bring it. Bad trolling will be providing nonsensical statements, especially those such as "lololol" or "hahahahhhajahjaja" and good trolling will be defined as providing coherent arguments that are funny or at least meant to be in good humor.2) No Kritiks. I don't care if the resolution operates on assumptions (like that something can be beneficial). We're arguing under those assumptions.3) No forfeits.4) Use the rounds for their intended purposes. For example, no new arguments in the last round.5) Breaking these rules results in an automatic loss. I'll just debate whoever accepts this, so race to it.Good luck!
God is real

I understand that to you, There is no evidence of God. However, If you look around the universe you can see how every single little detail is perfectly made. For instance, If the sun was 3 feet closer to us, We would all burn to a crisp, If it were just 3 feet away, We would all turn into instant icicles. Our DNA and genetic codes are all perfect. Everything on the earth points to the fact that there is a creator. Now many atheist wonder how God exists. If everything must have a creator wouldn't the creator had to have been created? The answer is No. Let me explain this to y'all. The universe is made up into four components. Matter, Time, Space, And Energy. They are all manifestations of eachother meaning they all coincide with one another and rely on each other. Without space, We couldn't have matter. Without Matter we couldn't have energy and so on and so forth. The universe is bound by these four components. We are all made of matter, We all need energy to survive, We need space to be able to exist, And we are also bound by time, Meaning we must be born and we must also die. Imagine you are baking a cake. The cake needs flour, Sugar, Water, Oil, And eggs. Without these five components a cake would not be a cake. The cake NEEDS these 5 components to exist. However, Do you need flour and water and eggs to exist? No! Because you're not a cake. You are not bound by these components because you are the creator of the cake! You see God created the universe. He created Matter, Time, Space, And energy. He doesn't need space and energy to survive because he created space and energy. He isn't bound by time so he has always existed and will always exist. He doesn't have to have a physical form because he is not bound by matter. It is really hard for a human to wrap their minds around God's omnipotent existence because the four components he created that we are bound by is all we've ever known. The fact the we have a creator who perfectly placed us and everything around us is way more plausible than everything magically happening by a giant explosion. Just to add to the debate, I believe in God because I've seen his miracles. I knew a woman who had cancer tumors in her lungs. Hundreds of churches prayed for her and the cancer completely disappeared. She hadn't even started treatment. As a waitress I remember my rent being due on Tuesday. I went to work on Monday 300 dollars short. I begged God for a miracle. I went home with $300 that night. I've seen so many prayers answered there is no doubt in mind that there is a God up there answering them. He loves you and he wants to change your life. You don't have to understand everything, You just have to have a tiny bit of faith. In the Bible it says that the faith of a mustard seed can move mountains. He will reveal himself to you, But you must first take a step of faith. I promise you won't regret it! ***I typed really fast, Please so your best to look over spelling and grammar errors!
God is real

Happy to think with you today, I accept. Also as a point of emphasis on our clarification, No one can disprove the existence of God if one does not exist. If a God existed one should certainly be able to prove it. In a similar fashion, I can't disprove the existence of unicorns, Nor can you. If they existed it then evidence would exist for them, Even if we have not found it yet. That being said, No one believes in unicorns without evidence. For some reason, People have chosen to believe in God with no evidence. God is a solution that fits the bill and explains certain things. God is a possible solution to these, But nothing proves that God IS the solution. Coming into this topic, Your burden of proof is impossible, And mine is the conclusion you arrive at for everything else you have no evidence for. I'd love to see your arguments for believing in something with no evidence. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht
God is real

I am going to be arguing the fact that God does indeed exist. My opponent is expected to provide arguments that disprove his existence. I am very excited about this debate. I like my debates to be organized so please follow suit! Round 1- Acceptance/Greetings. This round can also be used for anything you want to clarify. NO ARGUMENTS IN ROUND ONE Thanks! Round 2- Opening argument Round 3- Rebuttals Round 4- Closing arguments To whoever accepts this debate please ensure that we keep it respectful and somewhat professional. Thank you so much for accepting! ****I understand that nobody can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. However we will do our best to provide arguments that show evidence of either the existence of God, Or in my opponent case, The lack thereof.
The Pronoun "Yall"

I did not let your points fly over my head i covered every one of them thank you=) Now i have only one last comment to say here. now while my opponent loosely refuted my points i seem to be able to understand his, he thinks that becuase some lazy journalists wish to have it easy by not just saying all of you or you all my opponent belive we should put the word "Yall" in the english language it has not been countered yet that the word yall seems highly uneducated becuase it was born in a time when education was hard to find, other countries would not belive that the american presidint did say to iraq, "yall are gonna pay for what you did to them two towers we had standing right there" becuse the word yall seems just as uneducated as the rest of that phrase. Because my opponents has not given ligitimate points and becuase my major reasons have stood i urge a strong vote in the negation!
The Pronoun "Yall"

I do not know what my opponent is trying to imply. But I have a profound respect for the English language. It is for this respect that I post this debate. Unfortunately, as evident in his opening statement, my opponent may not be as well versed in English grammar. It is apparent my opponent did not comprehend the substance of my argument. My opponent stated, "First my opponent stated that "Yall" is being use (sic) more and more in modern litarature (sic)." This is a straw man argument. It was my contention that the word "you" is becoming increasingly acceptable as an indefinite pronoun, even among professional writers and journalists. This new usage adds onto the two other main uses the word "you" already wields, causing much unnecessary debate and confusion among writers and grammarians. All this confusion would be cleared up if "yall" were considered acceptable in modern American English, because writers would not have to worry about ambiguity caused by the dual nature of "you," being both singular and plural. I never said the word "yall" was being used more and more in modern literature. What I did say was that the word "you" is causing much distress among writers and journalists, particularly post modernists, but among all writers alike. I listed many examples of this. Granted, my first example was tongue-and-cheek made only to clarify what I meant by "ambiguity." My opponent seems unaware of all the subsequent examples following the first. My opponent then went on to say, "Last and no offence (sic) to my opponent but i (sic) know that i (sic) would not vote for an english (sic) speaking president that used the word 'Yall' durring (sic) all of his speeches." This counterargument holds no merit, because even if the word 'yall' were to become acceptable in modern American English, this new acceptance would not magically make president Obama start using the word. Moreover, my opponent is free to vote however he likes. This is not a debate about the political ramifications or ethnic subcategories of language. This is a debate solely about the nature of it. And that's the beauty of it all. Language changes. It is a developing phenomenon. English would not exist without German, and German would not exist without the romantic languages--no romantic languages without Latin, an so on. This is a debate over the hypothetical acceptability of the word 'yall.' The resolution? "That the pronoun 'yall' should be considered acceptable in modern American English." I've already presented my case. I could reiterate my opening statement--they seem to have flown over my opponent's head--but I'll let it stand. My opponent has yet to address any of it. That said, I thank my opponent for this wonderful debate. It was a pleasure.
The Pronoun "Yall"

Now as my opponent has the resolution i will offer my own, he belives that the slang term "Yall" should become a pronoun. As i am con i will be debating that is has no place in the english laguage. Refute: First my opponent stated that "Yall" is being use more and more in modern litarature First this stand is both false and not supported. Second the idea behind it is flawed because the only books it is really in are those that are fetured in say alabama or some other rural state. Second my opponent stated that that the word "you" is already able to be used in multiple ways thus it is not nessasary to add another word such as "Yall", In fact it would only serve to further destroy the english language. Last and no offence to my opponent but i know that i would not vote for an english speaking president that used the word "Yall" durring all of his speeches. As for my opponents senarios they all seem childishly silly no offence to my opponent ment =) My two main points are 1) the toll on the english language and 2) It is a slang term that was invented thru years of lesser education. Now lets all picture obama giving a speech but instead of using the words you all he says "Yall" repeatedly i personally know that i would not have voted for such an illeterate president. First is the toll on the english language and to be honest with you our language already has slang terms in it and this causes a problem if "yall" becomes a word then children in school everywere will start using it and this will only serve to push the english litaracy over the cliff becuase our children would sound like a bunch of 19 century slaves from the gheto. You would see our very smart knolegabe president saying yall to the world every press confrence and nobody in another country woul even bother envying us anymore. Second is that this is one of many slang terms now used by kids growing up in the gheto it was a slang term invented by those african american farmers durring the time of the resolution when education was scarce and people talked like they had molasses dripping out of the side of their mouth. Because this will only serve to destoy the english language i urge a strong vote in the Negation of this resolution. P. S. pro will you please refrain from using cuss words i find them offending and not nessasary. =(
Government is a necessary evil to protect the freedoms of human individuals.

Seeing as my opponent is an anarchist and I am a minarchist, this should be a debate of the ages. "Government" is here defined as a collective compulsory authority limited to protecting freedoms through a collective defense and court system. VALUE: Individual liberty: The freedoms to govern one's life and property to the extent that other people's life and property are not threatened. CRITERION: Individual liberty will be protected by establishing a government limited to an enforced court system and a collective defense. CONTENTIONS AGAINST ANARCHY: 1. Under anarchy, a domestic group could unite and force an oppressive government onto a population. 2. Under anarchy, vigilante justice and a private alternative are the only systems that protect individual freedoms. 3. Under anarchy, foreign nations can easily conquer and then establish an oppressive government. CONTENTIONS FOR MINARCHY: 1. National defense is best achieved through a collective effort, as without an official military, a people can only REACT to an invading force. 2. Individual rights can be protected through a court system and with a system of law enforcement. With government, individual rights simply can be effectively protected. 3. Not infringing on another's liberty should be compulsory. I will stop here. My contentions are basic and self-explanatory. I will now let my opponent present a case.
In Support of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

I take the position that embryonic stem cell research should be fully supported by nations all over the world. I will go into details as to how stem cell research is instrumental in potentially healing serious diseases such as Parkinson's Disease, Type I Diabetes, and other ailments. To disprove this argument, one most provide iron clad evidence that stem cell research does more harm than good. At the end, the votes will determine if stem cell research is a good thing, or whether it causes issues and causes harm to us as a society.