BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion should be legalized

Full Resolution: Abortion should be legalized for up to 24 weeks into the pregnancy Team Debate!!!Team 1 (Pro) -- Famousdebater -- TheProphett Team 2 (Con) -- Logical-master123-- Uniferous == Rules ==1. First round for acceptance. No new arguments or rebuttals in the final round2. By accepting the debate, Con agrees to the following definitions...Abortion: The intentional termination of the fetus Should: Ought Legalized: Make something previously illegal permissable by the law3. Burden of Proof is shared. Pro must show that abortion should be legalized, Con must show that it should be illegal. 4. No semantics, kritiks, trolling, forfeiture, etc.Let the games begin!
Should All Students go to college

This was not a very defenable resolution. There are many fine good people out there, who are simply not academically oriented.There is nothing wrong with them, it's just not their thing.They likely have other good qualities & talent's, & should utilize those unique gifts that they do have, rather than running after a diploma which they likely won't get. & which will likely leave them frustrated, broke, & depressed.Know thy self, if you think you have what it takes, give it your best shot, & even if you don't make it, you have made a rational decision & gave it your best shot. But if a person has the integrity, & self awareness to realize "This is not my thing", Bravo, search inside yourself, to find what is your thing.For example some entertainers & athletes wouldn't have been able to get through college. They utilized the talents which they did have, & earned/accomplished much more than most people graduating ivy league. (I think that's unfortunate, but that's the way it is.)Some people are inelegant but aren't fit for college for other reasons.Steve Jobs had always been an intelligent and innovative thinker, but his youth was riddled with frustrations over formal schooling. I'm not saying no one should go to college, but I think it's over rated. Here are some stats:I found an entire list of college dropout Billionaires:They include; Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Lawrence Ellison, Steve Jobs, John D. Rockefeller, Ralph Lauren, Michael Dell, ty warner, Sheldon Adelson, Ted Turner, & more. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.forbes.com...Aug 5, 2009 – Of last year's Forbes 400, at least 46 billionaires did not have a college degree.Quotes:“It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education.”- Albert Einstein “The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.” Albert Einstein “Wisdom is not a product of schooling but of the lifelong attempt to acquire it” Albert Einstein quotesEducation is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school.Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com... “If I had learned education, I would not have had time to learn anything else.” - Cornelius Vanderbilt----------------Here are some more links:http://centerforcollegeaffordability.org...http://centerforcollegeaffordability.org...http://online.wsj.com...http://www.cbsnews.com...& I'll end off with a really cute clip. I love this kid:http://www.youtube.com...
Jesus is God

1. Jesus is the Son of the Father ( 2 John 1:3). Pro: No conflict 2. The Father is the one God ( 1 Corinthians 8:6). Pro: No conflict 3. The Son is God by nature because his Father is God ( Hebrews 1:3). Pro: No conflict. But there are many meanings to the word, "nature". In being? In personality? In character? In what? If your argument is in state of being, then please refer to 1-3 below. 1. It cannot be in same in nature (as in state of being). Jesus said, God is "spirit" - John 4:24 2. The Jews believed God was spirit or "ruach" in the Hebrew Bible - Isaiah 31:3 3. Luke quoted Jesus saying, "for a spirit has no flesh and bones, as you see me have." - Luke 24:39 Question: In what sense is the Son in nature as the Father? Question: Adam was also a son of God, is Adam God too? Luke 3:38 says,"....who was the son of Adam, who was the son of God."
Jesus is God

Thank you for accepting my challenge. I concur that God is a spirit which obviously shows that he has no flesh and bones. It means God is invisible ( not perceivable via human sense of sight).I am referring to the Son as same in nature ( being) with the Father ( Colossians 2:9).The Father's nature includes his being a spirit. His Son is of same nature with him. Therefore, the Son is also spirit.Colossians 1:15 proves that the Son is spirit( invisible) before everything was created through him. The Son is the image of the invisible God. An image expresses exact imprint of the prototype. Therefore, the Son is invisible because the image he evinces is an invisible image who is God ( the Father).Adam is created from the dust, he has a beginning of existence but the Son is begotten from the Father, he has no beginning of existence ( John 1:18, 5:26).
Weapons should be illegal

my greetings to my opponent. i see that you are very much opinionated on this subject. The main argument of this debate is obviously the problem that weapons are considerably the root of violence as what you have stated. provided by this presupposition, you suggest that weapons should be made illegal. The main purpose why man possess weapons is for one's necessary protection against any threat to one's safety and security. this is constituted by existing laws that permit the possession of weapons to certain individuals. My opponent failed to further discuss his position and broaden the context by providing a material fact why he came up with the suggestion that weapons should be made illegal. even if we radically trace the very existence of weapons, weapons have long been existed since the biblical times. and this is a fact. the violence in our society that my opponent pointed out provided by my opponent's statement "People die everyday from weapons and are even tortured by them for no reason." is because, according to him, OF THE EXISTENCE OF WEAPONS.Weapons do not kill people. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. it is the inactions of man that is responsible for the violence in our society. It is not because of the existence of a certain material that man possesses. Yes, weapons are dangerous, this is undeniably a natural fact. but even though we ban weapons, the inactions of man and violence will continue. So illegalizing weapons does not solve such social dilemma. But if weapons are legal, any individual is guaranteed by his own personal safety and security through self-protection. Any individual will not anymore entirely rely on the availabilty of police and government authorities to secure his life. THUS, WEAPONS SHOULD BE MADE LEGAL.
There is a God

I accept. Before I start I would like to ask you a question.What reasons do you have for holding the position of atheism? Your reasons are based upon logic and/or evidence or lack of it. So, is there any reason/evidence for you holding your position that you defend? First argumentFirst, I would say that I can prove that anyone who looks at a building and says that he doesn't believe that there was a builder, is a fool. This is because a building is absolute proof that there was a builder. Buildings don't build themselves, from nothing. Only a fool would believe that."Second, I would say that anyone who looks at a painting and believes that there was no painter, is a fool. The painting is absolute proof that there as [sic] a painter. Paintings don't paint themselves, from nothing. Only a fool would believe that.Then I would say that creation is absolute 100% scientific proof that there is a Creator. A creation cannot create itself, from nothing. But that's what the atheist believes--that nothing created everything from nothing. That's a scientific impossibility, and its silly to would believe that.Second ArgumentHow do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God? The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute, they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how do you account for them?Examples of logical absolutes are: something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time (Law of non-contradiction). A thing is what it is (Law of identity). A statement is either true or false (Law of excluded middle). These are simple, absolute logical absolutes.The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and are always true all the time everywhere. They are not physical properties. How do atheists account for them from an atheist perspective?Thoughts reflect the mind A person's thoughts are the product of that person's mind. A mind that is irrational, will produce irrational thoughts. A mind that is rational, will produce rational thoughts. It seems fair to say that an absolutely perfect mind would produce perfect thoughts. Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then it seems proper to say that they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind. We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind God since a physical brain is not transcendent by nature because it is limited to physical space, and God is, by definition, transcendent in nature.
There is a God

I know this is a really common debate topic that's been done a thousand times before, but I'd like to try my hand at it. I am taking the con position in this debate, which means I am denying the existence of God. In this case, I mean the Judaeo-Christian as described in the bible. The burden of proof here lies completely on pro; all I really have to do is refute his or her arguments to prove my case. (That being said, I will present some arguments of my own to keep things interesting.) Rules and format are pretty standard: 1) No semantics 2) Forfeiting a round counts as a concession 3) 48 hours to respond 4) Courteous and respectful conduct is expected I'm keeping this at three rounds to avoid redundancy. Whoever accepts should use the first round to establish his or her case (and not just for acceptance). Round two will be my rebuttal to pro's argument (and any arguments I wish to present) and pro's follow-ups, rebuttals, or new arguments. Round three will be final rebuttals, clarifications, and closing arguments (no new arguments, please). Thank you in advance to anyone who accepts. I hope we can make this interesting and informative.
The United Kingdom is better off leaving the EU.

The European Union (EU) is a politico-economic union of 28 member states that are located primarily in Europe. The EU operates through a system of supranational institutions and intergovernmental negotiated decisions by the member states. The institutions are: the European Commission, the Council of the European Union, the European Council, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank, the Court of Auditors, and the European Parliament. The European Parliament is elected every five years by EU citizens.
The United Kingdom is better off leaving the EU.

By forfeiting the round, my opponent should have lost the debate according to standard DDO debate rules. Unfortunately we failed to clarify that is the opening round and so I am unsure of whether to continue with my arguments. I ask the voters to take this into consideration, as I am reluctant to write another 1000 word essay against an opponent who lacks the effort to reply. Therefore I shall now (briefly) sum up another argument.Social Benefits of EU The European Union provides the citizens of its member states with countless benefits. The free movement of peoples is an integral part of the EU and it allows globalisation to really come into its own, sharing the cultures of each of its member states. This contributes to a more understanding and utopian society, whereby Britain can greatly benefit from the diversity this brings. By leaving the European Union the citizens of the UK would be unable to benefit from this and would also be ostracised from the greater part of Europe.
The United Kingdom is better off leaving the EU.

This section will have only one argument.1. Opening statement.2. Democracy deficit. (1) Opening statementThe United Kingdom, in short, medium and long term - is better off outside of the EU. The relatively recent advancement of society can be attributed to many things: lassiez-faire capitalism, rational discourse and democracy have all been paramount to the rapid progression of society since the 19th century. These ideas have been, for many years, the sole protector of individual rights and innovation. I can think of nothing more disrespectful and detrimental to those ideals than the deplorable reality we face with the European Union. Although it was an organisation forged in order to unite Europe through democracy, its only achievement to date has been to divide it through bureaucracy. (2) Democratic deficit For some time, democracy has been a collateral victim of the EU's war on the nation state. This can easily be evidenced by the very nature of it's structure; there are three main bodies within the union, the European Commission, the European Council and the European Parliment. Curiously, the single one of these bodies that is fully elected by the people of Europe and holds democratic legitimacy, the European Parliment, is the least powerful as it does not hold legislative inititive[1]. The European Commision, however, a group of unelected beaurocrats chosen by member states[2] are able initiate legislation to their hearts content[3]. The president of the European Commision is elected undemocratically, with the European Council proposing a candidates to be voted on by the European Parliment[4]. Furthermore, the statistics surrounding the European elections shows unprecedented public apathy, with an all-time low 42.54% of Europeans turning up to vote[5], and for good reason, since the European Parliment cannot even legislate, why bother turning up? In conclusion, the European Union is an organisation that lacks democratic legitemacy, and is therefore a regressive step in terms of liberty for the people. In your response, please refute my existing points and make an argument of your own. References[1] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[4] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[5] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[6] . http://www.ons.gov.uk...
Laptops are better than TVs

You can play your dvds on the laptop, and some laptops can play tv. All these viruses and spamming you may talk about does not apply to everyone. You would only get viruses if you are stupid enough not to download some security, or that you didnt check where you put your credit card details. Personally, I have never had a laptop crash because I downloaded software I needed. I have never signed up to a website which asks for personal information and isn't known worldwide. If your point is also, chatrooms are dangerous, dont talk to people who you have never even seen before. Its all to do with common sense. Laptops are officially the best. You also can do anything a TV can do. Handheld/portable TVs are absoloutly terrible. The screen is so terrible that you cant have a good look. Well, pretty much nothing can beat the cinema apart from if you saw the latest news, the biggest TV, its as big as an elephant!!! Lastly... Besides from the debate, I am not male, I am female...
Skills Gained from debate...

Oh well, there are many debates, but very few yam festvals. To give this debate ending value, I quote the Yamboree web site: http://www.yamboree.com... Sweet Potato Pie Recipe 1 unbaked pie crust, recipe follows* 1 1/2 cups cooked, peeled and mashed sweet potatoes 1 heaping teaspoon all-purpose flour 1 cup milk (canned, half and half, cream or whole milk) 1 cup sugar 3 egg yolks 2 tablespoons margarine, melted Directions Preheat oven to 350 degrees F. Roll out 1 pie crust and place it in a pie plate. Mix all of the remaining ingredients together and pour into the unbaked pie crust. Bake for 45 minutes or until pie is firm. Allow to cool completely.
Skills Gained from debate...

I guess it's a bit ironic that I've not had the time to sit down and write out an argument until the last round when I've already forfeited. I'm not going to try and make an argument here, I would instead like to express my deepest regrets at having wasted my opponent's time, and effort. This is legitimately a debate I want to have, and I've long wanted to debate my opponent. This flop that is this round is completely and utterly my fault due to my failure to appropriately manage my time. In short, being a senior sucks and dual credit classes are hard. What free time I have had, I've had to use to work on research, and cutting cards for my actual debate rounds. My town, (Gilmer, Texas) celebrated our yearly yestival this week (appropiately name the Yamboree) which sucked a large chunk of my time up, and to top it all off I had to waste my Sunday watching football with a bunch of people playing games on their iPhones. They wheren't even paying attention, but wouldn't even let me change the channel to The Nightmare Before Christmas! The prior bit isn't a plea for pity, or votes; I've been a sincerely poor opponent in this debate and Roy deserves every single point and then some. Moreso this is just me venting a bit at how crappy this past week has been for me, and how dissapointed I am for not getting the chance to debate Roy on such a great topic. Again, and in Conclusion; + I'm sorry I've wasted this round, and your time Roy. + Being a High School senior sucks both your time and energy. + The Yamboree is over-rated, and there where no vendors selling Fried Pickles this year. + I hate cutting cards.
Skills Gained from debate...

Thanks to Con for an excellent topic.I accept the challenge and will support the resolution, "The skill gained through competitive spoken debate are equal in magnitude to the skills gained from competitive online debate." Con will argue that the skills of spoken debate are more value.While taking the name "Con," Con is proponent of the position that spoken debate is of greater value than written debate, which implies he is assuming the burden of proof. I suggest that the burden of proof be shared, with the debate judged by the preponderance of evidence and arguments.There is minor semantic issue of what "more valuable" means. Is it greater short term emotional satisfaction? Is it greater ability to solve real-world problems? To avoid arguing semantics, I suggest that each side identify what is claimed to be of value and let readers decide what constitutes overall greater value.
Skills Gained from debate...

Full Resolution: The skill gained through competitive spoken debate are equal in magnitude to the skills gained from competitive online debate. What I am wanting to argue, is that the abilities one gains through spoken debate are more valuable than those gained from debating online. I as the Con will argue that the skills gained through spoken debate are more valuable, the Pro will argue that either the skills gained from online debate are more valuable, or that they are both equal. The burden in this sense is reciprocal, as both the Pro and the Con have ground that must cover. I very much so enjoy this site, and I certainly believe there are many debate abilities we can improve by being a member of this site. However I believe that the abilities and skills one can gain through competitive spoken debate (LD, CX, PF, Parli, IPDA, etc...) are greater in magnitude than those gained from debating online. I won't offer any specific rules. only that semantics are discouraged, and round one is for acceptance only.
Little johonny jokes

One bright Sunday morning Cindy and Mark took their eight year old son, Johnny, to church. They sat right in the front so Johnny could get all the benefits from church. But as we know eight year old boys do not like church at all. Especially little Johnny. Halfway through the pastor's sermon Johnny fell asleep. The pastor noticed this, and it was distracting him from preaching. He decided to go over to Johnny and ask him a question about God. "Son, do you know who created all the heavens and earth?" His mother, Cindy, who did not want to be embarrassed by her son falling asleep, stuck a pin in her son's right butt cheek. "GOD!!!!" Cried little Johnny. "Very good," the pastor replied. For he could not say it was wrong. And he continued on. But a short while later, Johnny fell asleep again. The pastor once again noticed this and decided to ask another question "Who was Mary and Joseph's son?" The pastor asked. Johnny's dad, Mark, did not want to be embarrassed either, so he stuck a pin in his son's left butt cheek. "JESUS CHRIST!!!!" Yelled Johnny. And once again the pastor replied "Very good." Near the end of the church service, Johnny could not control himself and fell asleep again. For the last time, the pastor decided to embarrass him and ask a very hard question. "What did Eve say to Adam on the morning when they woke up on the first day?" But before Johnny's parents could do anything Johnny shouted "IF YOU STICK THAT THING IN ME ONE MORE TIME, I'M GOING TO TAKE IT AND BREAK IT IN HALF!
Little johonny jokes

Rules: 1 joke per round, enjoy. Little Johnny watched his daddy's car pass by the school playground and go into the woods. Curious, he followed the car and saw Daddy and Aunt Jane in a passionate embrace. Little Johnny found this so exciting that he could hardly contain himself as he ran home and started to tell his mother. "Mummy, I was at the playground and I saw Daddy's car go into the woods with Aunt Jane. I went back to look and he was giving Aunt Jane a big kiss, and then he helped her take off her shirt. Then Aunt Jane helped Daddy take his pants off, then Aunt Jane..." At this point Mummy cut him off and said, "Johnny, this is such an interesting story, lets save the rest of it for supper time. I want to see the look on Daddy's face when you tell it tonight." At the dinner table that evening, Mummy asked little Johnny to tell his story. Johnny started his story, "I was at the playground and I saw Daddy's car go into the woods with Aunt Jane. I went back to look and he was giving Aunt Jane a big kiss, then he helped her take off her shirt. Then Aunt Jane helped Daddy take his pants off, then Aunt Jane and Daddy started doing the same thing that Mummy and Uncle Bill used to do when Daddy was away on the rigs." Mummy fainted! Moral: Sometimes you need to just shut up and listen to the whole story before you interrupt!
Little johonny jokes

Little Johnny, Billy and Tommy were walking home from school one warm spring day. As they were cutting through the alleys and backyards, they happened to look through a hole in the fence of one of the yards where a woman was sunbathing in the nude. As they looked through the hole, Johnny suddenly started to scream, left his friends and took off running for home. The next day, as the three boys came home again, they found the same hole in the fence and started to watch the woman. Again, after just a few minutes, Johnney started screaming and ran off quickly. On the third day, the boys were peeping into the hole in the fence again after school, when Johnny turned around and started to run again. But this time, Bill and Tommy grabbed him and demanded to know what was wrong. Johnny replied, "My mother told me that if I ever looked at a naked woman, I would turn to stone... And I started to feel a part of me getting awfully hard… "
Little johonny jokes

Little Johnny was starting his first day at a new school and his father called the teacher to tell her that little Johnny was a big gambler. She said that it was no problem and she has seen worse than that. After Little Johnny's first day at his new school his father called the teacher to see how it went. She said, "I think I broke his gambling". The father asked how and she said, "He bet me $5.00 that I had a mole on my butt, so I pulled down my pants and won his money." "DAMN!" said the father. "What's wrong?", the teacher asked. Little Johnny's father said, "This morning he bet me $100.00 he would see his teacher's butt before the day was over