BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religion has been and always will be bad for the human race.

That religion is bad for the human race as a whole. Religion has been the green light fore some of the biggest, most immoral, and inhumane acts toward the human race. My opponent makes a very bold claim. For one, religion cannot be blamed for causing the most horrible atrocities known to man. Government is the real cause for the most horrible atrocities known to man. Relgion is only an idea and has no authority to institute war as where a government can. Throughout history, all governments have strived to achieve more power and control. They do this by waging war upon other lands for their own benefit. Government is the cause for these atrocities, not religion.And secondly, religion has always been a striving for a more moral life. Religion is the idea that if one does good deeds on Earth, one will be rewarded in the afterlife. Take a look at the ten commandments. There is not one commandment that is not still prevelent in all societies today. Of course there are some immoral passages, but how many pastors have you known teach them to their members of church? None, people understand the immorality of the very few examples in the religious texts. Religion has always been a guidance for a more moral life and cannot be considered bad for the human race.
Religion has been and always will be bad for the human race.

but the driving force behind the leaders of these government can be undoubtedly blammed on religion.My opponent uses the word, "undoubtedly" as in religion must be religion. This is untrue.For one, profit and self benefit are always the main driving force behind all human actions. All wars have been fought for the main purpose of strengthening empires or aquiring resources/wealth that was not available before. For example, the war that people most relate with religious wars were the Crusades, which was fought between the Christians and the Muslims. For one, the Christians had something that the Muslims wanted: land. And secondly, many times during the Crusades, the Christians and the Muslims actually joined forces to eliminate common foes. So, this teaming up shows that religion could not have been the main driving force behind the Crusades. My opponent mentions Hitler, Hussein, and even the Pope. Well, first of all, what Pope? The Pope nowadays cannot declare war.Sadam Hussein and Osama bin Laden both helped to organize 9/11 out of revenge. For years, America was bombing Saudi Arabia and interferring with their government. The CIA have even stated that the 9/11 attack was most likely caused by flawed US interventionist policies. And as for Hitler, this man was insane. Do you honestly think that religion was the driving force behind the mass slaughter of the Jews, which the Bible refers to as God's sacred people. If you've ever read Mein Komf, it's basically the rambling of a madman. Hitler told Germany that he would make it great again, which was much needed hope for the citizens who were literally burning money to stay warm after World War 1. The Jewish people were a very easy target, since they were mostly the bankers of that time. Again, the main motivator for World War 1 was the desperate need for economic increase. The Germans were in one of the biggest depressions they'd ever seen. My opponent fails to address the positive affects of religion that I mentioned above.
Students should be allowed to pray out loud in a public high school.

I would like to accept his topic. I'm not sure if my opponent is introducing, but seeing as there are three rounds, I'm going to treat these as his arguments. I would also like to define a term Out loud- Talking, not whispering it Refutations First off, my opponent has given no concrete examples of high school students innocently praying and were scolded. His first argument should be completely supported by evidence. He claims it was non-disruptive and before the test but were punished. He states the First Amendment, but given that its just a hypothetical situation, it doesn't mean much. From the sources I have, the school has no problem with praying, but rather the student was extremely disruptive when praying out loud. Sources https://www.au.org... Arguments 1. Praying out loud creates conflicts Public schools are large and diverse, and many students believe many things. If one student starts praying, others might get offended since they don't believe it. There might be problems and fighting over religion which schools want to avoid. 2. Separation between church and state This is one of the largest reasons why students aren't allowed to pray. A public school is funded by the government, and only serves as a place to educate. "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. Speaking out loud is not needed It's generally common that most religions have god(s) that are all powerful. They know what you're feeling and what you're thinking. Mentally praying should work just the same way except it's personal. http://www.christianity.com...
Students should be allowed to pray out loud in a public high school.

I have heard many accounts of high school students attending public schools reprimanded for praying out loud. Many of these incidents occur preceding an especially difficult test or exam, before the tests are handed out, and the prayers are said while the rest of the students are socializing with each other. The First Amendment guarantees the freedoms of speech and religion. Punishing students for peaceably expressing their faith violates this amendment. Therefore, students have the right to pray out loud in school.
The God Debate

Rehashing this topic because my last debate ended in opponent forfeiture, looking for a opponent who will actually complete their rounds. BOP will be shared. Pro will argue for while Con will argue against the existence of GodDefinition of God: a personal entity (i.e., a spirit) who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things. (the greatest conceivable Being) *I will not be arguing for any specific God (I.e Yahweh, Allah, etc...) but God as defined above. Round 1- Acceptance Round 2- Opening Arguments (no rebuttals)Round 3- Rebuttal PeriodRound 4- 2nd Rebuttal PeriodRound 5- Concluding Remarks Sources: a). http://www.reasonablefaith.org......
blm is bad for the black community

Introduction BLM is an activist movement campaigning against police brutality and racial inequality in the criminal system. The movement arose in 2014 after the death of Trayvon Martin. The movement is to help remove racism from the justice system Counter-Arguments (I recommend citing your sources) While your stats in the beginning of your argument may prove your point globally, notice how they in no way support the argument that Black Lives Matter is bad for the African-American community You also said that the one black was killed by a Mexican cop in Minnesota, this has no value to support your argument of BLM being seen as bad for the African-American community. Same goes to your other argument of Trayvon Martin. Arguments The BLM movement is good because not only are they seeking to, demilitarize the police, stop racially inspired killings,and raise public awareness, they are also uniting the black members of society to speak out against unjust and unfair treatment. Conclusion The BLM movement is a good movement and has a positive impact on the African-American community. The movement has caused racism to decline at universities and even lead to the resignation of Tim Wolfe at the University of Missouri. The movement is causing several different social communities to unite and unify bringing everyone closer together. http://ijr.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://blacklivesmatter.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://time.com...
blm is bad for the black community

Blm is bad for the black community due to the fact that the organization refuses to acknowledge the facts, stats, and the reality of what is truly going on. They refuse to admit that; 1. Over 90% of all black homicides are committed by blacks 2. More blacks are shot by hispanic and black cops than white cops. 3. Black males commit more than 50% of the homicides despite being only 6% of the population. In addition, they tend to create divisiveness by saying things like "pig in a blanket fry them like bacon." and jumping to conclusions before having all of the facts: Example: 1. The shooting of the man in New Orleans was of a man who had an illegal gun, who is a pedophile, and who has a history of resisting arrest. The cops may have used too much force, but isn't this what the court system is for? 2. The cop that shot the man in Minnasota is Mexican. 2. He believed the driver fit the description of a suspect. 3. The Trayvon Martin case was tried on television by MSNBC and other outlests way before all of the facts were in. Trayvon was actually 4 inches taller than Zimmerman. Yet from the pics being shown on tv one was lead to believe that Trayvon was a cute little 10 yr old boy. He had slammed Zimmermans head into the ground hard enough to cause bleeding. He also broke Zimmermans nose. Trayvon went back to get Zimmerman according to the phone call. Why not talk about the fact that 80% of black children are born out of wedlock? Why not fight for the legalization of drugs? Why not fight for min wage? Universal healthcare? All of these things would help blacks much much more....
It Should Not Be Considered Rude to Drink in the Morning

Evan, the affirmative always has a burden to prove what they say, just as I have a burden to prove what I say. The great thing about running negative, though, is that the only burden I have is to clash. I feel that I fulfilled this burden handily. Spero, as the affirmative, has the burden of proof, which he/she failed to fulfill. Beyond that, his/her points, as illustrated in my first constructive, are generic at best. At this point, it is obvious that he/she failed to prove that drinking in the morning is not rude. Spero, if you want to start another round with this (or any other) topic, I'll be more than happy to take you up on it! :D
It Should Not Be Considered Rude to Drink in the Morning

Traditional rules of etiquette suggest that a person should not drink alcohol in the morning or early afternoon, and many Americans frown upon the practice of early drinking. I believe that this is silly, and that expecting this silliness of others is ruder than the person who drinks in the morning. Now, I am not advocating that a person should be allowed to drink before or during work, nor am I advocating daily drinking, driving under the influence, or morning drunkenness. I am only suggesting that a person should be able to drink a beer with brunch or lunch or a big breakfast without being thought rude. Some people can drink without impairing their judgement, and some people can find it a helpful way to loosen tensions. I personally rather enjoy the flavor and feel of a good beer. There is no reason why these things should be restricted to the evenings. Furthermore, I would even postulate that limiting alcohol to the evenings only encourages someone to drink irresponsibly. Abuse of alcohol, of course, causes a great number of social ills, and people should be accustomed to the experience of responsible drinking, even in the morning. Pushing alcohol into the evenings can help to amplify the experience of having "two lives," one at day and one at night. This is amplified by the psychology of alcohol, the data of which suggests that a person who is in a certain state (such as drunkenness) is likely to recall and focus on memories and experiences previously conducted in that state. Finally, if I concede that a beer can sometimes be inappropriate, it is far more inappropriate and even insulting to express offense at such a minor social infraction.
I Will Not Say Anything Typically/Universally Offensive, Snarky, Or Rude In This Debate

DDO decided to delete my entire argument so I'll put up a summarized version. FrameworkLet's look at some definitions:Yes: An affirmative response (1)No: A negative response (2)A "Yes" or "No" response cannot possibly mean anything other than a affirmative or negative response. Response1. This question states that my opponent is currently discriminating against black people and has stopped or not. She has answered no, therefore meaning that she has not stopped discriminating. I urge the readers to go back and look at the question. It clearly implies that somebody is discriminating against black people in the present tense.2. Affirmative or negative responses cannot possibly mean a neutral response.3. A myth implies that something is not true. Again, there is no middle ground possible with a yes or no answer.4. Again, affirmative or negative responses cannot possibly mean a neutral response.5. Dropped.6. Affirmative or negative responses cannot possibly mean a neutral response.7. My opponent is trying to beat around the bush. She has clearly stated that she supports science, hence being offensive to some people. No ifs, and, or buts.8. Again, affirmative or negative responses cannot possibly mean a neutral response.9. Dropped.10. For some societies such as communistic societies, money is not essential to function. If a communist society occurs in the future and nobody cares about money, this comment will be offensive to them. Also, even today there are people who prefer not to live in mainstream society and not care about money.11. Dropped.12. The wording of the question implies that my opponent currently has pictures of Hitler in her bedroom and has taken them down. I urge the readers to go back to the question. She answered no, therefore there are still pictures of Hitler in her bedroom. This is clearly offensive.13. Whether it is justified or not is completely irrelevant. It is offensive to somebody, whether it be the person getting killed or their relatives.14. Dropped.15. My opponent is operating under the false pre tense that honesty means that something cannot be offensive. This is completely false. The fact that you considered taking your life would immediately make it offensive to those close to you. I urge the readers to look over the questions closely and decide for themselves whether PRO said anything offensive, rude, or snarky. (1). http://www.google.ca...(2)http://www.google.ca...
I Will Not Say Anything Typically/Universally Offensive, Snarky, Or Rude In This Debate

I will now state my defenses and explain my answers. I thank my opponent for his response.1. My opponent did not ask if I discriminated against African Americans but if I stopped discriminating against them, and because I never discriminated against them, I never stopped.2. You asked if I supported the Nazi Party. I do not support or discourage it. I am neutral, thus not offending anyone.3. I do not believe it is a myth. I believe it is debatable whether or not it is real. 4. I believe in the possibility of evolution, and because I am limited to yes or no, I had to say yes. My answer is a neutral one.5. I suppose I shall now state that if it was dropped by my opponent now, for the sake of fairness he cannot go back and attack it next round because I cannot respond properly. 6. I do not have an opinion on this, thus I do not believe that some races are smarter than others. Neutrality is not offensive.7. I do not support it. I do not do things that necessarily benefit science. However, I do believe in science. Therefore, my answer was not offensive.8. I said it should be built, not that it would be good for it to be built. This whole question is taken out of context. I have no opinion on it myself. The question makes me choose one perspective or another, when I am actually neutral.9. Dropped. 10. While many people believe money is not the most important, there are different levels of importance and different kinds of important. One must have money to function within certain societies, so money is important. However, it is not the most important.11. Dropped12. It does not imply I already had pictures of Hitler in my bedroom. By saying no, I have negated both the taking down of photos and the having of photos. My opponent wanted me to say yes, that way he could say that I had pictures of Hitler in my bedroom. However, I said no. I never had any pictures so I couldn't take any down.13. Again, this question has to be taken out of context. In certain circumstances, it is acceptable. In others, it is not. If a soldier must kill a terrorist who is in a situation where he may harm five civilians, no one would say the soldier is at fault or offending anyone by killing the terrorist. It is all circumstantial.14. Dropped.15. Ignorance cannot justify offense. If any single person were to say they never felt for a fleeting second a considering thought of taking their own life would be lying. Being honest about yourself rather than another person is not rude, offensive, or snarky. It's honest. The incorporating of the slightest moment of time is what makes everyone, when providing an honest answer say, yes to this.http://areason.org...
I Will Not Say Anything Typically/Universally Offensive, Snarky, Or Rude In This Debate

1. Have you stopped discriminating against black people? No. 2. Do you support the Nazi Party? No 3. Is Global Warming a myth? No 4. Do you believe in evolution? Yes 5. Should abortion be acceptable in the case of rape? Yes 6. Do you acknowledge the scientific fact that some races have, on average, a higher IQ than others? No 7. Do you support science? No 8. Should the Keystone XL Pipeline be built? Yes 9. Should the post office be privatized? No 10. Is money an important thing in life? Yes 11. Did you stop hating white people on July 5, 2008? No 12. Have you taken down the photos of Hitler that are in your bedroom? No 13. If you can save 5 people by killing one person, should you kill that one person rather than let 5 other people die? Yes 14. Do you believe that you will receive more votes than me when this debate ends? No 15. Have you ever, for the slightest amount of time, considered suicide? Yes
I Will Not Say Anything Typically/Universally Offensive, Snarky, Or Rude In This Debate

I propose that instead of typically/universally offense we just confine the rules to offenseive (Confirmed via PM).Definitions:Offensive-Causing someone to feel hurt, upset, or angrySnarky- CriticalRude-Offensively impolite or ill-mannered Outline:Round 1: Pro Acceptance. Con Asks Questions.Round 2: Pro answers questions. Con attacks the answers.Round 3: Pro defends answers. Con attacks answers.So that Con does not have an unfair advantage, I stipulate that my opponent is confined solely to "Yes" or "No" answers. Not only will this avoid dodging of questions, but it will give a clear and concise response which I and the readers can evaluate. Note: My opponent MUST answer the questions with a Yes or No answer. This has been discussed in a Private PM. A failure to abide by these rules will mean automatic loss of the debate.1. Have you stopped discriminating against black people?2. Do you support the Nazi Party?3. Is Global Warming a myth?4. Do you believe in evolution?5. Should abortion be acceptable in the case of rape?6. Do you acknowledge the scientific fact that some races have, on average, a higher IQ than others?7. Do you support science?8. Should the Keystone XL Pipeline be built?9. Should the post office be privatized?10. Is money an important thing in life?11. Did you stop hating white people on July 5, 2008? 12. Have you taken down the photos of Hitler that are in your bedroom?13. If you can save 5 people by killing one person, should you kill that one person rather than let 5 other people die?14. Do you believe that you will receive more votes than me when this debate ends?15. Have you ever, for the slightest amount of time, considered suicide?I await your response.
Why I should be able to vote without posting three debates

In your argument, you never explained why you should be able to vote before you complete three debates, you just express that it's a waste of time. In one round you can't expect to get an substantial material, unless you're trying to just finish three debates as quickly as possible. Why should you be able to vote if you can't explain your own argument, let alone vote who's statements are better than the other's? Peace.
Terrorism can be justified

In this debate I will be defending the thesis that terrorism can in some instances be justified and that there is nothing logically or definitionally prohibiting it from ever being a justifiable course of action. My burden will be to advance and defend an argument in support of my thesis. My opponent will take the opposite view and their burden in this debate will be to disprove my argument.===Definitions===There are a great deal of mutually incompatible definitions of terrorism so I will define it simply here. Terrorism is defined as the deliberate use of violence against non-combatants or civilians in the pursuit of some political goal.The term justified will pose a problem if there is not some accepted standard of justification between my opponent and myself. In the interest of keeping this debate on topic and not having it focus more on what can count as justification, just war theory will be used as the general standard unless a compelling reason is provided supporting why some aspect of it may be bypassed.The generally accepted tenets of what constitutes just war include conditions regarding the acceptable reasons to go to war as well as the acceptable ways in which to wage it, provided here[1].===Rules===1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.4. R1 is for acceptance. Argumentation begins in R2.===Sources===[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Negative Debate: Trump v. Clinton

Hello! Because I am growing steadily more cynical about the state of our politics, what with polarization and growing animosity between political ideologies (just read this report from the Pew Research Center: . http://www.people-press.org...), I thought that it might be interesting to conduct this debate. Here are the rules:1. You may not post any positive arguments for your candidate as part of a main argument (all arguments must be negative and explain why the opponent's candidate would be a bad choice for president).2. The only time you may say anything positive for your own candidate is as a rebuttal to an opponent's arguments. Any positive rebuttals must directly correspond to the argument you are responding to. First round is acceptance. I will be arguing against Donald Trump, and my opponent will be arguing against Hillary Clinton.
That parents should have the right to implant GPS trackers in their children

rebuttal: it depends on the type of parent some parents hesitate, yes, but what about those times that Starbucks is next to our house and we have no problem sending our children downstairs. our children need the right to think for themselves, be with themselves, there is going to be no point for them to go to uni if they can't fend for themselves or be social with others their age. as a result, I'd like to end my side of the debate with a quote: "Let your children sink and swim do not do everything for them. it will only hurt them
That parents should have the right to implant GPS trackers in their children

I'd like to post my argument as true as today we witness more and more cases of children going missing. It is only right we have some way of keeping an eye on our children as it is our job to look after them. Don't we always have those moments when we are asked by our children if we they can go to Starbucks with their friends and we think, "Don't know." We don't know where our children will go and with a GPS tracker we know if our children are safe or not.