BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Was Pearl Harbor more important than 9/11

The "common sense and unity" you mentioned also occurred following the events of Pearl Harbor. Congress declared war on Japan one day later, with one negative vote (http://www.nationalww2museum.org...) . Compare one day to over a month. Which had more unity? Also, it would take a great deal of unity to create the amount of weapons stated in my first argument, which was a result of entering the war, which was a result of Pearl Harbor The statement 'they play a part in our daily lives" is incorrect. Do you go to the airport everyday? No. "Most of these people did not expect it." I believe it is fair to state that those aboard the USS Arizona did not expect it either. Even if they were military, who expects their boat to be exploded in a time of peace? America and Japan were on good enough terms for Pearl Harbor to be a surprise attack. And the sailors at Pearl Harbor were not as able to defend themselves as they seem. Many of the weapons and guns at the base were taken out immediately. (Source: visiting Pearl Harbor National Memorial) "William Browning..." I'm sorry, but the author of the stated article is a yahoo contributor. He has no credentials to his name that would make him an expect on this subject. "The families of the victims..." And are you trying to say the families of Pearl Harbor members were not devastated? To top it off, Christmas was right around the corner. How many Americans do you think had a happy holiday knowing they would soon loose family members if they hadn't already?
Was Pearl Harbor more important than 9/11

Pearl Harbor was more important then 9/11 for several reasons. To begin, Pearl Harbor is considered one of the turning points of WWII, countered only by Operation Barbarossa. Pearl Harbor placed America into the war. It has been proved in several polls and debates on this very sight that without America, the allies would have lost WWII. (http://www.debate.org...). (http://www.debate.org...). To bring it back to the subject, Pearl Harbor played a huge role in WWII, while 9/11 didn't really bring us into a world changing war. The war in terrorism is big, sure, but as big as say, a world war? 2,403 people died in Pearl Harbor. (http://history1900s.about.com...). 2,996 died in 9/11. (http://www.statisticbrain.com...). True, but considering that many of them died in the following fires, their deaths were much less gruesome then the deaths of 1,177 sailors blown to bits on the USS Arizona." Following Pearl Harbor, the US economy boomed (http://www.u-s-history.com...). This was due to F.D.R's goal to manufacture 60,000, aircraft in 1942 and 125,000 in 1943, 120,000 tanks and 55,000 antiaircraft guns. (http://www.pbs.org...). Entering WWII was one of the main reasons the Great Depression ended. We wouldn't have entered WWII without Pearl Harbor. So, now you can grasp the reasons why Pearl Harbor was more important."
abortion

My opponent has forfeit. I will fulfill by BOP by providing three arguments against abortion. 1. Abortion is murder. The killing of an innocent human being is wrong, even if that human being has yet to be born. Unborn babies are considered human beings by the US government. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which was enacted "to protect unborn children from assault and murder," states that under federal law, anybody intentionally killing or attempting to kill an unborn child should "be punished... for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being." The act also states that an unborn child is a "member of the species homo sapiens." [126] At least 38 states have passed similar fetal homicide laws. [127] - National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), "Fetal Homicide Laws," ncsl.org, Feb. 2013 2. Allowing abortion conflicts with the unalienable right to life recognized by the Founding Fathers of the United States. The Declaration of Independence states that "[A]ll men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." [51] Abortion takes away from the unborn the unalienable right to life that the Founding Fathers intended for all human beings. [115] - Penny Young Nance, "Celebrate Life, Embrace Grace...End Abortion," foxnews.com, Jan. 23, 2012 3. Abortion disproportionately affects African American babies. In the United States, black women are 3.3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute. [68] In New York City in 2012, more black babies were aborted (31,328) than had live births (24,758). [77] - New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, "Summary of Vital Statistics 2012: The City of New York: Pregnancy Outcomes," nyc.gov, Feb. 2014 For these reasons, abortion is bad and should not be allowed. Thank you, Max Lamperouge
abortion

Since my opponent has failed to provide definitions for this debate - I will do so here. Definitions- Abortion: the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy Right: a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. Body: the physical structure of a person or an animal, including the bones, flesh, and organs. Alive: (of a person, animal, or plant) living, not dead. Living: having life; living; existing; not dead or lifeless. I will be posting my main argument in the second round, but I challenge Pro to answer these questions for me. Pro, what makes a child alive? Why is the fetus a part of the woman's human body? Is it not a separate body? Why does she have a moral or legal entitlement to the fetus's body? Why does she have the moral entitlement to terminate the fetus? Can the fetus feel pain? How can you be sure? Anyways, I look forward to the second round of this debate.
Only you can prevent wildfires.

The reason why I have delayed my response is that I have been mulling over a moral dilemma. There is a secret that I have been holding back from humanity, and I believe now is the time for me to reveal it. Smokey the bear is actually talking to me. Contrary to what my opponent says, there is no contradiction. Smokey the bear is addressing me and me alone, so even though it may be confusing who he is referring to, the message is still true. I am the only one who can prevent wildfires. I not only have the ability to protect the world from wildfires but I can also control the weather. Be it rain, hail, sleet, snow, tornadoes, hurricanes, or even lightning, I can manipulate them all. It is no trouble for me to prevent wildfires, as I can simply choose to prevent lightning from striking. However, this is only if I so choose. Thus, you can forget about everything that my opponent has said about this issue. There is no contradiction, no confusion. Smokey the Bear was talking to me, and Smokey the Bear was right. Only I can prevent wildfires. I thank my opponent for this debate, and hope to do this again sometime. Until then, I urge the audience to keep my secret.
Only you can prevent wildfires.

Smokey the bear's catchphrase was not originally developed by any western man. In actuality, this is a phrase that hails from the Ancient East, lost and disfigured through the mists of time. Long ago, in ancient times, China was plagued by massive flooding, which killed livestock and citizens by the thousands. . http://en.wikipedia.org...(ruler) King Yao, also known as Tang Yao, passed on the duty of halting the floods Gun, one of his subordinates. Gun attempted to halt the floods by building giant earthen dikes, but alas, his plan failed. The floodwaters were far too strong to stop the catastrophic flooding that threatened to wipe out Chinese civilization before it began. Gun's son inherited this task, and set about creating a system of river channels that had the dual purpose of lessening the impact of the flooding, as well as providing irrigation water to the farmers, turning a mighty natural force of death, into one of life. Gun's son was very diligent in his task. It took thirteen years to complete, and legend has it that when he started, he was only five days married to his wife, and that she was with child. Over the thirteen years, he passed by his house three times without stopping to enter even once. "he first time he passed by hearing that his wife was in labor. The second time he passed by, his wife was holding his son's hand as he was learning his first steps. The third time, his son greeted him and enjoined him to come in for rest" This master of water, tamer of the rivers, and epitome of diligence, was none other than YU THE GREAT. . http://en.wikipedia.org... As a result, King Yao bypassed his own son as heir and gave the throne over to Yu, who served as the first emperor of China, establishing the Xia dynasty. Smoky the bear is thus echoing the Chinese legend, in stating that only YU, whose mastery over water and natural disaster, can prevent forest fires and wildfires. Of course, this traditional phrase has been marred by romanization of Chinese words, and lost its meaning through time, we can still understand the meaning. Only YU can prevent wildfires. The responsibility rests not with us, but with the great Chinese Emperor, who has proven himself more than capable of controlling the natural disasters which plague mankind. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.
Only you can prevent wildfires.

Ah, the infamous Smokey the Bear and his illogical and unrealistic expectations. Nary an American born citizen exists who cannot recall from memory the baritone plea, "Only you can prevent forest fires." As though this unreasonable expectation weren't enough, his current motto is now, "Only you can prevent wildfires." It's not enough that you are responsible to save the forest, but the grasslands are your sole responsibility as well. I am firmly against Smokey's motto. I disagree that only you can prevent wildfires. No, I more than disagree. I assert that it is absolutely impossible. 1. Smokey's motto is logically incoherent. only - adj. 1. Alone in kind or class; sole: an only child; the only one left. 2. Standing alone by reason of superiority or excellence. [1] you - pron. 1. Used to refer to the one or ones being addressed: I'll lend you the book. You shouldn't work so hard. See Regional Notes at you-all, you-uns. 2. Used to refer to an indefinitely specified person; one: You can't win them all. [2] The key word in the phrase, "only you can prevent wildfires," is "you." It either refers to the reader as an individual or to all the readers. Either way, the adjective "only" renders Smokey's demand logically meaningless. If smokey is addressing us as individuals, then we have a logical contradiction. In this scenario, when I read Smokey's brainwashing propaganda, I read it to say, "Only KRFournier can prevent wildfires." But when Christopher Walken reads Smokey's mind-altering subliminal messaging, he reads, "Only Christopher Walken can prevent wildfires." This is a logical contradiction, as it cannot be the case that simultaneously only KRFournier can prevent wildfires and only Christopher Walken can prevent wildfires. If smokey is addressing humanity in general, then his command should read, "Only you all can prevent forest fires." Still we have a logical conundrum. "Only" is a restrictive adjective but "all" is an inclusive adjective. Either Mr. Bear is blowing smoke, or the term "only" is superfluous. Even if we can make sense of Smokey's creed, we still have the next problem. 2. Humans, individually or collectively, cannot prevent wildfires. From 2002 to 2006, 16 percent of wildfires were caused by lightning. [3] What kind of psychotic Ursidae insists on humanity stopping natural weather phenomena? How long before Rusty the Armadillo insists that only you can prevent trailer park destruction? It's plain to see, it's absolutely impossible for anyone to prevent wildfires without first having the ability to prevent lightning. CONCLUSION Smokey the Bear has been making irrational, impossible demands on humanity for 65 years. [4] His motto is illogical and his expectations unreasonable. I think it's time for Mr. Bear to lay off the Smokey for a while and come to his senses. As it stands, the resolution is negated. It is not true that only you can prevent wildfires. SOURCES: 1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 3. http://findarticles.com... 4. http://www.smokeybear.com...
Who's better? Mario or Sonic

i didint need text bc its that good. Think about it - Sonic may be fast {really fast}, but thats basically the only thing he specializes in. Mario is the king of jump next to his younger brother Luigi, he's also some-what atheltic and he has incredible strength [From Super Mario 64 when he hurls bowser off the platform]. Then we got to consider the fact he can throw fire balls, without the flower ever since Super Smash Bros. And if you'd like to add to sonic's injury, theres his Final Smash from Super Smas Bros melee. If you don't know, its basically a barrage of super-size, launched fire balls...
Who's better? Mario or Sonic

In my oppinion I think that mario is better i think that becuse mario is a legend he has been around for Let"s start with the obvious. Mario is a man, a awsome and , sincere, hardworking caractor. Sonic is a dirty rodent who, let"s get real, was clearly a product of some sort of underground experiment gone wrong and covered up. Also, did he meet Tails in this same lab? Two tails are a deformity that should not be portrayed so adorably. If I had to pick one without knowing their history I would vote Mario in a New York minute (which is apparently seven seconds). Also sonic is a dumb hedghog who apperently paul walker and trying to seem like hes so fast even though he can out run him he doseint have the skill like mario R.I.P Paul Walker take a moment of silence.
Banning Muslims From Entering U.S.A Is Great Idea

I believe in what Donald Trump said, which is to temporary ban Muslims until we can figure out what's going on. If we can figure out if there are any radicals coming over and are they actually causing troubles. Even if it is a small amount of people causing trouble in America. Rules: 1. No trolling 2. No google docs, words must remain in available words. Let the games begin.
Chistians should be perfectly fine with abortion

thank you for that response. those are all points that we all know and are taught. first, i apologize if i dont care enough to use the shift key or add punctuation. i really dont care about my grammar. i do know that i can make a clear precise point without perfect grammar. if someone cant understand what im saying because of grammar , they have bigger issues then my proper sentence structure. the bible and preachers teach peace and to love your fellow man. it also states we were all born sinners and need to accept jesus as our savior to get into heaven. it states god has a divine plan. he knows everything before it happens and everything happens because of gods will. which we supposedly cant understand and just have to accept it. if you read the bible and and understand gods will, and you have an abortion, then it must be part of gods will and his divine plan. otherwise theres no justification for harm being brought to an innocent child. if god created all of us and already knows what were going to choose and do because he created it all that way. having an abortion should be perfectly acceptable. its either people are being taught wrong or there are inconsistencies throughout the teachings that contradict what we are actually supposed to do. do you go against gods divine plan, or agaisnt gods teachings. " Strong believers also advocate that God decides everyone's fate and as such no one should have abortions because that would condemn them to hell, and of course, that would be horrible, especially when aforementioned Christian could've stopped it from happening" so that fate must be abortion. god decided that was the childs fate and thus made it so. that sentence contradicts itself. if god decides everyones fate then there no way any human can stop gods plan. who are we to determine if gods will is bad or agaisnt his own rules? throughout the bible gad has killed millions of people, even with abortion. why are we to think that these abortions arent part of his divine plan in present day? we all sin everyday multiple times. jesus was the only perfect being. the bible states every sin is a sin no matter if its murder or you worked on sunday. it is said in the bible if you sin and ask for forgiveness, no matter what the sin is , you will be saved and forgiven. so if it is a sin, and all sins are the same, why is it so bad to sin, be forgiven AND have your child directly go to heaven. you cant work on sunday (sin) and then turn around say abortion is bad (sin) , according to the bible. summary: 1. god has a divine plan that he made before any of us were alive 2. everything that happens is because of gods will good or bad. we just dont know what his will is 3. abortion must be part of gods will if he created you with plans to have the abortion. 4 . the souls of aborted children still get to go to heaven and be with god.
Chistians should be perfectly fine with abortion

I would like to begin by saying that I am not a Christian. I am not religious or agnostic, I am an atheist. I do, however, understand why Christians are pro life and thus anti-abortion. I would like to start with the fact that they believe in the "Sanctity of Life"- the idea that because God gave life, only He can take it, thus to abort would be playing God and that is blasphemy and a sin. If God gave life, they believe that the person to whom he gave life has a purpose to serve God in any way that they can, and so by ending that life (Which begins at conception for many), removes this person's ability to fulfil God's wishes. Secondly, the Ten Commandments state that: "You shall not murder"- Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21, and Christians believe that ending a life, even at conception is murder, which sentences them to hell. Strong believers also advocate that God decides everyone's fate and as such no one should have abortions because that would condemn them to hell, and of course, that would be horrible, especially when aforementioned Christian could've stopped it from happening. Finally, Christians believe that God created man in his own image, and made us king of the animals- "Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."- Genesis 1:25. As such, abortion is taking away the uniqueness that God bestowed upon us as the human race- if we can throw the life of a human as quickly as we can the life of an animal, then we have not met this role that God set upon us, and have dishonoured his wishes and gifts. To summarise: Christians believe abortion is wrong because: 1) It breaks the sanctity of life 2) It is murder 3) It breaks the unique gift God gave to the human race that we should rule over everything, and that we take God's image.
Chistians should be perfectly fine with abortion

i dont understand why Christians are so against abortion, when the soul of the aborted child ,widely accepted by the Christians, goes to heaven. isnt that the whole goal Christians want? having an abortion instead of delivering the child ensures your childs soul will end up in heaven. that 100% reduces the risk of your child growing up and straying from Christianity into sin, and/or actually being an "evil" person. if you say to have an abortion is a sin and a murder, then just ask for forgiveness and you'll be fine. therefore abortion is probably the single best thing any Christian can to for their child if the ultimate goal is getting into heaven to be with god.
The earth is spherical in shape.

A similar debate was already posted and accepted, but I don't think it's going to have the depth I was looking for. Repost. Please read the rules. --Summary-- I'm looking for a serious debate on this topic, so trolls need not apply. We'll be shooting for an evidence-based inquiry into the shape of our planet. In the past, I've seen that it can be trying to find the time (or in this case, space) to present all possible arguments on the issue, so we're going to be doing a "best two" format here. See below. --Rules-- 1. This is a "Best Two", traditional format. "Best Two" indicates that both sides will be presenting at most two arguments for their position. (Ideally, the "best two" arguments for your position.) When your position is critiqued it is sometimes necessary to bring in more evidence or explain a related phenomenon. This is fine -- just ensure that your entire argument can be largely separated into no more than two points. 2. Burden of Proof is shared. Regardless of how "silly" this topic is interpreted by most people, both the claim "The world is flat," and the claim "The world is round," are positive claims and so both sides have a burden to prove their claims. Voters are instructed to choose the winner based upon whichever debater presents a more compelling set of arguments (or argument). 3. Semantics arguments need not apply. While arguments based on semantics are important in some areas, particularly philosophy, this is a science-based discussion and arguments which rest entirely upon "defining ones way to victory" are not allowed here. It is difficult to define exactly what one of these arguments looks like, but when you see one, you know what it is. 4. 10k character limit. A debater should post a minimum of 4,000 characters in rounds 2-4. The purpose of this is to ensure that both debaters are actively involved in the conversation. --Round Structure-- R1: Intro / Con Opening Arguments R2-4: Normal Debate R5: Wrap It Up. The only important thing to note here is that Con will be leading with their opening arguments in their acceptance. No reason to waste space or time with a purely introductory round. --Last Minute Clarifications-- Even though I said that no semantics based arguments should be made, I will clarify this anyway. When I say "The earth is a sphere," I mean "The planet on which we live is spheroid in shape." Thanks in advance to my opponent. Let's have fun!
The Redemption By Christ Gives License to Sin

Once you have been redeemed by Christ and taken him into your heart once you realise that he died for you, you can still sin but it is frowned upon. Obviously we are all humans and we all sin but God does not take away the privilege of going to heaven away if you have sinned. Christians should try to be the best that they can and worship Jesus as their saviour but everyone makes mistakes and everyone is going to disobey their parents or disobey the teacher or swear as it is just human nature on the serpent gave Eve the piece of fruit off the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Eve gave the fruit to Adam and as soon as he too a bite out of that apple they had sinned and come short of the glory of God. Adam and Eve gave birth to children and Cain killed Able and he was given the mark of the beast, a mark put on one's body so no one would kill them. The Lord took mercy on Cain by putting this mark on him. No one knows if Cain went to heaven or hell so it will be a mystery until the Christians are taken to heaven.