BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Prayer will not change Gods Plan

Posted to comments 15 hours ago: The resolution obviously was assuming there is a God and he has a Plan... if you do not accept that then I will just give you the win I guess. But the fact that you took this debate against me JUST FOR A WIN is a little disappointing. I wanted to actually debate this, not lose because you want a better percentage.Unless my opponent accepts that God and his plan were implied I will gladly secede from this debate. I want to actually be able to debate this point without having to argue Gods existence. I was hoping that a Christian would take this debate honestly but because he is atheist I doubt this debate will be any good anyways.This round (if he accepts) will just be another round of acceptance. No points will be made.The last two rounds will have to do. No new points will be brought up in my opponents second round because now I cannot respond.
Prayer will not change Gods Plan

Opponant forfeited this round. I would also like to thank a fellow DDO member (Sorry i cant remember your name at the moment) for pointing this out in the comments section. Con has effectively forfeited: If god doesn't exist, then prayer won't change his plans. Con was supposed to argue that prayer _will_ change his plans, but he has left himself no way to do that. I would like to debate this again and since my opponant has forfeited i will not state any arguments, i dont think it is neccesary at this point.
Illegal immigration

Ok I may have miss used the word deficit, and for that i apologize. I think that if illegal immigrants are in a bad enough state to have to leave their "poverty stricken nation" illegal then they obviously don't have enough money to afford an education. My opponent also states that everyone deserves an equal opportunity. They do ave an equal opportunity, they can apply for citizenship. In America there is with out a doubt a homeless/jobless population. My oppenet seems to think that adding an extra 2 million illegal aliens will solve this problem. i also realize I may have been wrong about welfare. But what about hospitals? Out of the millions illegal immigrants here it is likely that some of them will be injured seriously enough to have to go to the hospital. Even if just 1% of the people were hurt bad enough to go to the hospital that would be 10,000 out of every one million people. Do you think they will be able to pay there bills? They don't have insurance to pay for it, because to get insurance you have to go through a process similar as to when getting welfare. They will not be able to pay for it, because they are working low pay jobs. Even my opponent admits it in his first argument "...to purchase employees at low cost." This will put them in debt and on the street when they can not pay their bills. Finally my oppentents second to last paragraph is quite comical in my opinion. He first says "...if it was true that illegal immigrants had a direct link to criminals then yes it would however this is not true. The fact that a person is an illegal immigrant does not make them a criminal." Hello yes it does! They came here ILLEGALLY, meaning that they broke the law making them criminals. Also i relilize that they may not commit future crimes. But my opponent says that they are just as likely to commit crimes as anyone else. If there were a million illegal aliens and 5% committed crimes that would mean that 50,000 criminals would be out there. That could mean 50,000 murders. 50,000 people dead, because of illegal immigrants.
Illegal immigration

=) The deficit my opponent speaks of is actually an 8 billion to 12 billion dollar deficit (depending on the source) that can be solved for in one of two ways. Either A. Schwarzenegger can remove his staunch policies on the education system which will allow for cuts in unneeded areas and could free up a great deal of money or B. "Schwarzenegger needs to review the costs and benefits all of the regulations on the books in California, and terminate those that hinder business and job creation." - http://www.freedomworks.org... Job creation of course could be helped by making immigration legal. Furthermore this is a deficit we are speaking of here, thus it is a lack of money, and has absolutely nothing to do with my opponent. Or for that matter illegal immigration. Next my opponent states that illegal immigrants steal our welfare. I would like him to prove how illegal immigrants, people who are not citizens of the United States, can possibly apply for welfare. Despite popular belief (?) one does not walk up and simply state, "I need welfare." You actually do have to prove you are a United States citizen which is typically done using a drivers license and social security card or birth certificate. Three items that illegal immigrants generally do not have.... And even if illegal immigrants could be on welfare my opponent is still going to have to respond to my equal opportunity argument. Something which he has not yet done. Finally my opponent states that the crime rate brought by these people must be considered. Unfortunately this has nothing to do with the resolution, if it was true that illegal immigrants had a direct link to criminals then yes it would however this is not true. The fact that a person is an illegal immigrant does not make them a criminal. An illegal immigrant is just as likely to be a criminal as anyone else, therefor we should not persecute illegal immigrants because of this. Instead we need to persecute criminals. Having said all this I can only see how my counter plan still stands in this round and actually helps the economy of the United States.
Illegal immigration

Mt opponent said that he does not know where i am getting the 9 billion dollars. I live in California, and in a speech given by Arnold Swartzsheneger he said "a 9 billion dollar deficit". Also he asks how they take away money from America. Hmmm lets think about this mabey WELFARE! I might agree with him in the fact that these people fill the lower jobs of society, but with the millions of them here alot of them have to be on welfare. And on your point on its no my 9 billion to spend. Part of its my money! I am a tax payer! The money lost by these people is alot more than the small amount gained. Oh and you also have to consider the crime factor. I am not saying all orr even most of these people commit crimes, but some do and that takes away from the police force, and cost lives.
Illegal immigration

"Illegal immigration is wrong. If it was ok it would not be illegal. These people are robbing our country blind, and I refuse to pay a chunk of the 9 billion dollars to support these people." First off, my opponent assumes that the 9 billion dollars (not sure where he is pulling this number) is his to spend. Sadly this is not true and is an irrelevant point on his case. Next the point that illegal immigration is bad because it is illegal is also a moot point. This is a great example of circular reasoning, if such reasoning were true then slavery would have been a good thing because it was legal. Blacks voting would have been a bad thing because it was illegal. Obviously not true, something being illegal or not does not necessarily determine whether it is good or not. Next my opponent attempts to point out that they are robbing our country blind. I would ask that my opponent show some way that this is true. Last time I checked these people are predominantly taking low income jobs that are easy to achieve and that make it equally easy for them to stay under this radar. This in turn promotes our economy through allowing small businesses to purchase employees at low cost. This in fact helps my opponent through the fact that the companies products will then be cheap to attain for my opponent. Reduction in labor costs = reduction in product cost + profit. Finally, my opponent seems to feel that these people do not somehow deserve an equal opportunity. I would like to remind my opponent that each and every person on the face of this earth was born randomly and had no choice to where they were born. The fact that an immigrant was born into a poverty stricken nation is not a justifiable reason for them to stay in that situation. These people should be allowed to attain just as much opportunity as any other person. Thus I offer a counter advocacy: Legalize immigration and destroy the border wall thereby saving our country 2.2 billion dollars. Thank you.
isam is the only way to heaven

All pro does is give a link to some stupid anti Semitic French blog.To give you a sampling of the stupidity:"Who wash brains of americans ?Publié 17 Janvier 2013 parhttp://en.wikipedia.org...Rothschild’$ Exposed: $500 Trillion Worth Includes: Bank of England, Reuters News, Associated Press, ABC,CBS, NBC, CNBC, CNN, Royal Dutch SHELL, Israel, Federal Reserve, US/UK Governments, CIA, NATO, Half Of WorldLire la suite"Not only is the content an obvious fabrication, the wikipedia link provided actually refutes the claim. The irony is that the blog is actually called anti-brainwash. LOL.I'd like to ask that guy to just stop & think for 1 minute, & really consider the possibility that he himself is brain washed.Really just think about it, how do you know that everyone else is wrong & brainwashed?Maybe you (too) are brainwashed.But he probably just call me brainwashed by the devil without even bothering to go through the exercise.How unfortunate.It's scary to believe that there are such people in the world.
isam is the only way to heaven

LOL.a) How could they be Muslim if it wasn't made up/invented/fabricated yet?b)The only source that pro gave, was the Koran. Who says that the Koran is true.c) Even if what pro wrote is true, that has nothing to do with the resolution. "you said there in no heaven "False. لم أكتب هذا كاذب lie. - كذبكذاب ابن كذاب من http://www.freerepublic.com...http://www.stratfor.com...عارالعارخجل---------------------------------------------" do you have the technology to see w is there after stars ?"Actually yes. Well not me personally, but they have these things called telescopes, & there are super big ones called observatories. They can see past the stars.-------------------------------------------------القزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزمالقزم
isam is the only way to heaven

1st of all, that blog, which seems to be pro's, plagiarized.The 1st clue was that it had relatively good grammar.The post in that blog is a 100%, Copy & past, plagiarized from islamwebhttp://www.islamweb.net...Who plagiarized it fromhttp://harunyahya.com...Who actually quotes W.L.C. (Not regaurding the koran obviously): http://harunyahya.com...Anyway getting back to the point made (Pro didn't even make the argument, he just posted a link.)At 1st glance it seems to me to be a takeoff from the bible (as is much of the Koran): Then I realized that the verse can't even be talking about Allah creating the universe, because the verse says "WE" in plural form, & the Koran just before that says Allah is one.Here's the final nail in the coffin:http://answers.yahoo.com... "How does Sura 21:30 translate into the Big Bang theory? It says, "Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"How is this the origin of the universe?? This sounds more like the sky was resting on the ground and Allah moved the sky upwards. Which is silly because the sky, which is part of the atmosphere, still connects with the ground.If Allah really created the universe in a "big bang" then why doesn't the Sura come right out and say that? Why is it in a vague way which could be interpreted in many, many ways? Additional Details Diamount: That's all so very, very vague though. It can be argued in many ways. Why isn't it clearer? 4 years ago Summer Best Answer- Chosen by Asker This is talking about the earth and the 7 heavens. It is the cosmic egg theory, which is basically that the earth and heaven/s were joined together, then split apart.Most ancient religions have something similar to the cosmic egg http://en.wikipedia.org...Taoism also has a similar story. http://www.livingmyths.com...These ancient religions all talk about heavens and earth being one unit (egg) and then the egg was split apart and as the egg was split the heavens and earth grew further apart. Which the Koran also talks about in another verse;"And it is We who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it."(The Qur'an, 51:47)So if you take the verses;"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together before we clove them asunder? and;"And it is We who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it."It is just like the other cosmic egg theories, but from a monotheistic angle."
Free Market Capitalism

I strongly oppose the free market capitalism. Free market capitalism must be strictly regulated and controlled by the central government. I present two reasons. Firstly, in the free market capitalism there is a fierce competition among business firms. Managers of those companies are strongly interested in enhancing competitive power in an age of global competition. To attain their purposes they try to reduce wages of their employees as much as possible and transfer manufacturing facilities to low-wage foreign countries. Therefore many workers find it very difficult to lead a comfortable and meaningful life. In the worst cases some of them lose their jobs. Human welfare is seriously damaged. Therefore the government must offer helping hand to help workers stem out of the difficult situation by introducing welfare programs. The government must play an important role to protect human dignity and welfare. Without government intervention free market capitalism would not function properly and would collapse in the long run. Anti-government movement and social riot erupt. Secondly, many of the central government of the developed countries face a large amount of debt these days. Therefore they do not have sufficient financial resourcies to carry out welfare programs. To overcome this situation the tax increase is urgently needed. People are strongly against it. Therefore the government must explain the reasons for the general public why drastic tax increase is necessary and how and in what fields it is used for. Promoting the collaboration and creating the dialog with the voters are urgently needed for most of the government leaders and policy makers. The government must shoulder a heavy social responsibility to make free market capitalism function more effectively and efficiently than ever before.
history has no use in a student's life

'those who forget history are doomed to repeat it' As I said, we are not kings. Few people who study in common schools may raise to such power, and moreover one can't be sure whether the person will apply and remember the lesson or not. 'New group of voters uniformed' They will always be uniformed, for they can't have close interaction with political parties. 'War on terror' Suppose I knew what it was. Then what? Maximum I can give an opinion about it on some site like this or the other. What if I was in region where weapons would be fired? Would I not run instinctively, rather than remember how to help victims and what were the sides involved? Now some more my points of mine- Who cares what happened 2000 years ago- Right now we are studying about Christianity in Europe. Even if we know what the Pope did that time, times have changed a lot now. Would anyone give taxes to religion now? Of course not. Then why do we still study it? Memory- History seems more about memory, remembering dates, locations and sites. How are we supposed to carry any learning when what matters is this in the exam grades?
history has no use in a student's life

I will argue that history is, in fact, useful in a student's life. While the old saying, "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it" may come to mind when this resolution is presented, I will only cover it a single time. It is crucial to remember the mistakes humans have made in the past, simply for the few that will raise to power. I agree that commoners will not benefit from the mistakes, but there are a select few that will go into some form of power. Now, I would like to point out that history includes recent events. In our modern society, the new group of voters is highly uninformed on what they are even voting for. How can one intellectual decide upon what should happen with the war on terror when they are unaware of how the conflict even arose?
The law concerning abortion rights for Americans, should stay the way it is.

Thank you for clarifying what we are debating about. My opponent's argument is that a human being should not be killed at any stage in his/her life. But let me start off by giving a hypothetical scenario. let's say there is a train coming down the track that is about to hit two people and the only way to stop the train from killing them would be for someone to pull a lever, switching the train on another track. But, by doing this, the train if switched onto the other track, it would kill one person. Would you rather let two people die? or kill one to save two? With this in mind, say there is a young 15 year old girl who had just been raped and gets pregnant. And lets say she does not want the baby. That girl is going to do everything in her power to get rid of that baby. She might go get a back ally abortion. Or go to another country to get this done. This would kill the baby and harm the girl. People are going to do this whether or not they think its the right thing to do. So, the right thing to do for us, would be to allow a woman to go to a clean abortion clinic to get an abortion. Another example. It would be the worst thing ever for me to get my girl friend pregnant at this age. having a baby at my age, without a college education or a decent paying job, it would ruin my life, her life, and the baby's life. And she would do anything, to not let her parents know if she was pregnant. And that speaks for all young girls, they will do anything to get rid of their baby. so why not make it safe?
The law concerning abortion rights for Americans, should stay the way it is.

It is something that I feel quite passionately about and I hope that we can instigate an intellectually stimulating debate. Good luck! Before I argue, I would like to clarify that the "Abortion Law" my opponent is referring to is the U. S. Supreme Court decision regarding Roe V. Wade. Technically, rather than legalizing abortion, this decision ruled it unconstitutional to hinder a women's right to privacy, a right that extends even to abortion. I am saying this, rather than to harp over semantics, to make it clear that this "Abortion law", effectively, made it illegal for states to make abortion illegal. Operating under the general assumption that abortion was made legal because of the Roe V. Wade decision could lead someone reading this to think that abortion was illegal before that decision. Although it was illegal in thirty of the states, it was legal in the case of rape in 1, of danger to the woman's health in 2, of the danger to woman's health, incest, or likely damaged fetus in 13, and lastly, legal for any reason upon request in 4 states. I will argue that the Roe V. Wade decision should be reversed, effectively making abortion illegal in the United States. To begin, I would like to say that this controversy boils down to whether or not we regard the unborn to be humanly and morally equivalent to that of a mature, or just born, human. This is the basis of it because none, or very few, agree with killing innocent human beings. What is required to qualify to be a innocent human being? Where do we draw the line? I draw the line at the instant of concept. If my parents had kept a kept a photo-book of me, and every year they added a picture documenting my progress, for memorabilia's sake. Each picture is a depiction of me. You can agree that each photo recognizes me at a different stage of development, still basically being the same entity in each of the photos. As we peruse the book we reach when I was 4 years old, and had just begun my pre-kindergarten year. I still matter just as much as i did when I graduated high school. Most still agree with me at this point. Next, we reach the day i was born when i was zero years old, so to speak. I still matter just as much, right? Now, we flip one last page back, and we see a picture of my sonogram. Is this still an image of me? Yes. Just like the picture of me entering Pre-K, I am at a different, earlier stage in my development. Even when I was a Zygote and Blastocyst(the earliest stages of my development) I still mattered just as much as I do now. Simply, the reason i say this for is, if I was killed at any point in my life, including when I was the most miniscule likeness of an embryo, I wouldn't be here to write this argument. So, at least to me, my life began as soon as it could have been ended, at conception.
Global Warming is real and we should do something about it NOW

well my first claim really doesnt mean it doesnt exist just saying it to say it. but my second claim i think says it doesnt exist. people like al gore say that the north pole would be ice free in 5 years and 5 years later there is more there now then there was then. global warming does exist though but its natural. we have little to no effect on it therefor if we all drive priuses around it wont change a thing. i will continue to drive my dodge cummins. http://www.theblaze.com... http://www.washingtontimes.com...
should abortion be legal

The baby is a seprate body from the mother in and out of the womb.When the baby is born,it still needs to be protected and cared for just like the unborn.It still needs help getting and consuming food like in the unborn.How is the baby different at birth than in the womb?Only where it is located. .Scientifically abortion is the killing of an unborn human(fetus). Killing a newborn baby is murder.The baby is physically the same in and out of the womb,so how is abortion not murder? .The only legal killing of humans is a execution.A execution is the killing of a convicted dangerous criminal.A unborn baby is innocent.Since the unborn are humans that are innocent of crime,why is there killing not murder?Since murder is illegal so should abortion be illegal.
On Average, The God Of Abraham Is Not A Kind Being

"Con states that God let's us choose wether to go to Hell or not."FALSE Problem Of Free Will(Non-gods):P1)An omniscient god knows the future.P2) An omniscient god can't be wrong.P3) An omniscient god can predict your actions and can't be wrong. P4)An omniscient god knows your actions.C1) You don't have free will.We don't choose anything. Conclusion:Con has pretty much conceded. The resolution regards kindness and he has not rebutted my arguments.Con seemed to be debating if god is morally justified, which is a different debate, but he does not even do that well.I have shown god is unkind, due to hell,he allows evil to exist and because he requires reciprocity for salvation.I shall end with one last piece of evidence: "2 Kings 2:23-24King James Version (KJV) 23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."Really? God commanding bears to kill children......Vote pro ^.^