BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Parents should teach their children to drink alcohol responsibly and in moderation before adulthood.

<<1. Look to the fact the many parent ignore the fact that there child drink in the first place>> Yes, they do. Then many are devasted and guilt-ridden after their child dies in some alcohol-related accident. <<2. Many religous parents would rather beat there children than talk about alchol with them especially about how much you should drink.>> And those children in turn will not only beat their own children, continuing the cycle of abuse, but probably beat their parents, should the parents ever require their children to care for them in their twilight years. <<3. Some Teenagers dont drink. Therefore it would be a waste of time>> Some don't, but many more do. It's a matter of responsibilty and making children aware. Many of them don't have sex, but take Sex Ed. Many don't own cars, but take Driver's Ed. Children need education about things like alcohol if they are to be safe and responsible in life. <<4. Last we have live our society based on the fact of ignorance to alchol and thats how we should remain.>> The number of alcohol-related deaths/injuries/crimes/violence is out of control and could easily be drastically reduced if parents were a little more responsible and taught their children how to control alcohol consumption. The fact of the matter is this: When people are taught to be responsible, they are more likely to be responsible people. In countries, like France, where alcohol is introduced to individuals at childhood, they are afforded less alcohol-related "drama". They have fewer drunk driving accidents/deaths. Alcoholism isn't running rampant in their country as it is in the USA. There aren't any Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) or Students Against Drunk Driving (SADD) Chapters because the tragedies that occur are so minimal that they don't require such programs. When people understand what alcohol is for and how to maintain an appropriate demeanor without losing control or good judgment, they are happy people that know how to have a good time without being a danger to themselves or others. Thank you for the debate!
Parents should teach their children to drink alcohol responsibly and in moderation before adulthood.

Well this seems like it will be intresting i will just go ahead and tear this down in just a few points... 1. Look to the fact the many parent ignore the fact that there child drink in the first place 2. Many religous parents would rather beat there children than talk about alchol with them especially about how much you should drink. 3. Some Teenagers dont drink. Therefore it would be a waste of time 4. Last we have live our society based on the fact of ignorance to alchol and thats how we should remain.
Resolved: Parents must take, and pass an IQ Test Before They Have A Baby

Round 1: Acceptance/Definitions/Clarification Round 2: Constructive Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Final Focuses Clarification- Extension of Resolution- Resolved: Parents must take and pass an IQ test with a score of 85 before they have a baby, and if the baby is born, it will be given to more fit parents. Definitions- IQ- Intelligence Quotient- A number that represents a persons intelligence on a special test. I wish the best of luck to my opponent, and look forward to this debate. Feel free to define any other words.
The United States should build and maintain a border fence

I thanks my opponent for this debate. My opponent has failed to give a definition so I will. Border Fence: An Obstacle that prevents one from passing Maintain: Make sure something doesn't break Also he has not provided a clear Plan so the right shifts to me to define what this resolution suggest. His Plan- Do build fences around every border the US has including the border between Canada and the US (note you MUST follow this because you did not state your plan in the first speech). Additionally the resolution does not require patrols to protect the barriers. I shall now refute. 1) Border Security is needed- 1.1 My opponent states that it is unfair to the real citizens of America that these illegal immigrants are allowed to come to this country and steal our benefits. But I ask you sir, what will creating a fence without borders do to protect our country. This resolution only creates a barrier that can easily be jumped over. 1.2 It will prevent the smuggling of bad products into our country. I once again ask, what will this unguarded barrier do? 1.3 To protect our country from terrorism... I feel like I am getting repetitive, what will a fence do to stop criminal masterminds from coming into our country? 1.4 My opponent wishes to prevent the fake importing of products.. Other than the fact that a fence will not prevent it, I ask my opponent to provide instances of these goods coming into our country. 1.5 To reduce illegal arms being exported. This fence does not prevent Crime Lords from exporting goods because it is unguarded. Additionally I would like to see some evidence of crime lords exporting guns along the border. 1.6 I do not understand this argument. Are you suggesting that building this fence would be an excuse for the US to collect taxes? That is completely immoral and unfair to our people. 2) A border fence is effective 2.1 There are MUCH cheaper ways to prevent an illegal immigrant from entering our country and staying such as abolishing birth right citizenship and placing land mines across the border. If price is what your worried about. 2.2 "Can prevent vehicles from crossing" I do not believe there are many illegal immigrants who drive into the US and if there is an exact number please state a source. 2.3 "In Israel a 500 mile high secruity fence was constructed" WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT 500 MILES HIGH!?!?! My opponent is CLEARLY using false sources, this argument does not stand without evidence. In refutation to that I would like to ask where these funds would come from, Republicans are taking away funds from everything to start gaining money and would never let a grant costing so much money pass through the house.
Black lives matter is promoting racism and black privilage

To be clear, based on the terms of the resolution the burdens are for Pro to show teh BLM is promiting racism and "black privildge. " Likewise the burden for the negative (that me! ) is to show that BLM is NOT promoting racism and, "black priledge" If you object to this understanding of the burdens you ought to bring it up now and we can hash it out in teh comments. You may want to pack a lunch, just sayin :-)
Clinton is going to win

Right Shawn Frost (debatejenvo) I'm going to point out some things that are wrong with her becoming president *She cant make up her mind about her decisions like she wanted the Iraq war she wanted to have same gender marriage now is against it she was even for NAFTA and then changed her mind *Hilary Clinton was wanting to have a no-fly zone in Syria which will most likely end up in a war involving nuclear bombs with Syria and Russia which have more bombs than America itself *She had deleted thousands of marked classified emails and lied about it on TV *Clinton will be 69 years of age before the 2016 elections end making her seem too old for president *She has revealed that she is a bad feminist, let that sink in *After an interview with a reporter in the 1980's she tells about a story of her defense of a accused child rapist in the 1970's She laughs after explaining how she had his sentence decreased by successfully challenging the evidence "You can still vote for her if you"d like," wrote a commentator after the story broke Sources - GradeAUnderA, http://www.smh.com.au... Now lets get to the response It is much less likely if Donald Trump was voted for president as Hilary Clinton's idea of having a no-fly zone is much more likely to start a new war plus just cause Trump may win does not mean that ww3 will start just because he was elected also Hilary is a liar does that sound like someone you could trust as a president? No it does not does it now.
Clinton is going to win

I know that if either is president then there will be a ww3 but Clinton is the lesser of the two evils. First of all Trump is racist, sexist and immature but Clinton is none of these even people from republican states have trouble choosing between the two because trump is racist and sexist. He also tends to act immature which shouldn't be the behaviour of a american president. One of the other facts too is that Clinton is leading by electoral votes according to the latest polls. So most of the latest facts prove that Clinton is going to win.What do you say to that SpeedyLapis
The United Nations is an effective platform for international issues.

To begin, I will introduce not the missteps of the UN but rather the benefits of more local organizations. I will start with ECOWAS (Economic Community Of West African States). ECOWAS is a regional economic union of fifteen countries in West Africa, with a stated mission of promoting economic integration across the region. However, ECOWAS has been successful in more than just trade. In recent news, it can be noted that Gambia underwent a turbulent presidential election that resulted in a forceful removal from power after a refusal to adhere to election results. And, without the need for UN intervention, an ECOWAS military coalition deposed the unlawful ruler. Imagine if the UN had been there: hundreds of advisors, peacekeepers, and volunteers in a situation that was quickly resolved locally. Multi-national organizations such as ECOWAS are able to improve international relations without forcing foreigners onto internal issues.
The United Nations is an effective platform for international issues.

For this debate, I would like a polished and professional discussion with the aim to sway both your opponent and the voters. I hope this debate is enjoyable and lively for all those participating. I would like to open the debate with an argument defending my first position, choosing con. I believe that the United Nations is both an ineffective and intrusive organization, its existence a platform for special interests. While it has done good in the past, recent events show that most countries are fully capable of acting on a more local level without a forceful hand to guide them. In addition, when passing international standards on issues such as LGBT rights, several theocratic nations voted against it, stalling any hope for LGBT rights to be upholded worldwide. And where UN peacekeepers are concerned, their presence is a massive infringement on an already delicate situation. UN peacekeepers often stay in active war zones for extended periods of time, with the only daily progress being casualties. The final point: the UN is too big a power to efficiently help and positively impact the locations where it intervenes, often taking on tasks that would better be left to local coalitions and trade organizations.
truth is anti belief

You argue that truth is not true, this goes against the definition of the word truth which clearly states that truth is a "state of being true" . You then go on to say that "so because facts can not not be fact science has no facts, becasue science can be wrong, because dont know that they are right" Using a word twice in a row is kind of always a no-no, as there"s always a more elegant way to revise a sentence in which you might initially be inclined to repeat a word immediately. Below I draw your attention to the word fact; fact fakt/Submit noun plural noun: facts a thing that is known or proved to be true. "the most commonly known fact about hedgehogs is that they have fleas" synonyms:reality, actuality, certainty, factuality, certitude; More information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article. "even the most inventive journalism peters out without facts, and in this case there were no facts" synonyms:detail, piece of information, particular, item, specific, element, point, factor, feature, characteristic, respect, ingredient, attribute, circumstance, consideration, aspect, facet; More used to refer to a particular situation under discussion. noun: the fact that "despite the fact that I'm so tired, sleep is elusive" Take a thing know to be a fact, a thing known to be true as per the definition. This is because of a belief in the truth, thus making it reinforce the idea of belief of the fact being truth. Thus again, providing my argument ground that belief is truth and not truth is anti-belief. I agree that you can believe anything, but that doesn't sway anybody of the ability to believe in a truth, thus making the statement that "truth is anti-belief" true. Because that it is possible to believe in a non-truth it is also possible to believe in a truth, thus making that statement incorrect. You then go on to say " you can think without having the ability to believe" , Notice that the states of belief under discussion have clearly been caused by perception and are semantically evaluable; and beliefs are acquired perceptually and generally given a truth signal, so their semantic evaluability shouldn't"t be in doubt. Oddly enough, even though this account divorces belief from assertion in many ways, the account can still give rise to Moore"s paradox: one cannot assert "p, but I don"t believe p" for whatever proposition one entertains one's beliefs and one has to entertain any state that one asserts. Truth is belief and falsehood is anti-belief.
Donald Trump is a Racist

1. The point is that the Justice Department did an investigation and found discrimination in the Trump business. At best, Donald was covering up the racial discrimination of his father’s company. At worst, he was actively engaged in carrying out the discrimination. Either way, I find him guilty. Whether we call the lawsuit a win or a loss is irrelevant. 2. As I’ve said, the birther movement gave a nod and a wink to peoples’ xenophobic beliefs. We both agree that there doesn’t seem to be a rational reason for its existence. Therefore, the best motivation for the birther movement and for Trump’s involvement seems to be xenophobia and racism. 3. You’re right, I argued that Trump doesn’t want Mexican immigrants, period. It doesn’t matter that removing restrictions would affect all immigrants, if Donald were pro-immigration he would support this. While ‘Mexican’ isn’t a race, there is a lot of overlap between Mexican and Hispanic. Besides, discriminating against an entire nationality can still be considered racist since race is not rigidly defined. I already explained in this debate why I think Donald is not truly concerned with the legality of immigration and that instead he cares more about the race and nationality of the immigrants. You’re last point is correct, I didn’t refute your statistic because I didn’t need to; this is a debate about Trump, not immigration. 4. Donald Trump’s original criticism was: “Everybody says it, but I have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump, a hater. He’s a hater. His name is Gonzalo Curiel.” Everything he said later was just damage control, although some of this damage control ended up hurting him even more, as I discussed in earlier rounds. The distinction between La Raza Lawyers and the general Hispanic community is arbitrary for the purposes of this debate. 5. For months, Donald said he wanted to ban all Muslims who are not US citizens. He started softening his tone in recent months to pander to the general electorate, but that doesn’t erase his previous statements. I make no comments about a geography-based travel ban, but a religion-based one does not make sense as a practical strategy since one can lie about their religion. This leads me to question the true motivation for the Muslim ban. I didn’t compare the Muslim ban to the Holocaust (reread my original argument from round 3) but I did compare Islamophobia to anti-Semitism. The majority of both Jews and Muslims are innocent. 6. This is a strawman. Racists don’t just happen to support Trump, they are directly inspired by Trump’s policies and statements which I talk about in my first 5 points. In your opening argument, you write “Donald Trump is NOT a racist, despite what how the media portrays him.” My response is that it’s not just the media that perceives Trump as racist. While this argument doesn’t stand alone, it validates my other arguments. It’s clear that Trump has engaged in a pattern of racist and racially biased behavior. I rest my case. Thank you for this respectful and engaging debate.
Donald Trump is a Racist

1. Actually, I never said that I agree that there was racial bias in the company. I only said that any racial bias (which doesn't confirm there was racial bias, it's just a hypothetical statement) would be attributed to Fred Trump considering Donald Trump was only an apprentice in 1973. That being said, it would seem that Trump won the lawsuits. All Trump has to do was read the Fair Housing Act and advertise to minorities. 2. Yes, I agree that his role in the birther movement was inspired by Obama's ties to foreign countries. The birther movement revolves around the idea that Barack Obama was not born directly in America. Barack Obama was allegedly (not proven) born in Kenya because his mother was not allowed to travel by plane. His mother than took him back to Hawaii to register his birth. That's the story that spawned the birther movement. The real, original birther movement had little to nothing to do with his relationship to Muslims. Although I think the birther movement is absurd, considering Obama would still be a citizen of the United States, it's very misleading, meaning that one can easily fall for it. 3. By your logic, Trump wouldn't want immigrants (legal or otherwise) period. You said he would ease up on migration restrictions and paperwork if he were really pro-immigration. The thing is though, the restrictions and paperwork apply to immigrants from all over - meaning that racism is not involved. Furthermore, 'Mexican' is a nationality, and 'illegal immigrant' is a status, neither of which are races. That being said, you did not refute my argument that there have been 3 million arrests attributed to a population of only 11 million other than calling it 'disputable'. 4. Actually, I was referring to Gonzalo Curiel's society called La Raza Lawyers. I was not referring to Hispanics. Trump also clarified that he was talking about the society on the full interview featured on your source. 5. He's only banning those from countries with heavy influence of terrorism. What if terrorists infiltrated the United States as refugees as they did in Europe? I don't think a Muslim ban from countries with high terrorist influence is racist, I think it is common-sense. The Holocaust is completely different from the Muslim ban. The Holocaust consisted of the killing of Jews, where most of them were innocent people. The Muslim ban is a temporary way to prevent terrorists from getting into our country. 6. Just because racists like him, doesn't make him racist. By that logic, any politician who had racists support them or racists become inspired by them would be racist themself. Thanks for this debate. You really made me think about Trump, even though I still doubt Trump is racist.
Donald Trump is a Racist

Donald Trump is NOT a racist, despite what how the media portrays him. 1. He is against illegal immigration. He is pro immigration and not racist towards Hispanics. "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending they're best. They're sending people with problems and they're bringing those problems to us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." That's a quote from Trump's campaign announcement, and if you only heard this part, you'd think he's anti-immigration and generally discriminatory towards Mexicans. That's not the case. Keep in mind he was discussing illegal immigration when he used that quote. "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending they're best." There's a difference between the government 'sending' people and people immigrating. So what Trump is saying is that the Mexican government is sending not-so-nice people over the border illegally - and they are. A pamphlet published by the Mexican government itself explaining how to illegally cross the border was recently discovered - source on that below. And the thing about these illegal immigrants is that we have had at least 3 million arrests attached to them (with tens of thousands of violent assaults, rapes, and murders) - there's only estimated to be 11 million! If that's Mexico's best, I'd hate to see their worst. "And some, I assume, are good people." There's the part where Trump affirms that he is not referring to all illegal immigrants as bad people, thus proving he is not generalizing every illegal immigrant. That's about all that comes to mind about what someone against Trump would call him racist for, however, there could be more. SOURCES: https://www.donaldjtrump.com... http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.breitbart.com...
Like Father Like Son: God's Relationship with Jesus Christ

Tatarize... Im not here to debate the existance of Jesus Christ, nor am I here to debate the existence of god. I want to debate the idea that Jesus Christ ,fact or fiction, is described in the bible to be a seperate being and the literal son of god. If we were to debate from a strictly biblical source (which is my intention), the existence of God or Jesus Christ doesn't matter. All I'm trying to prove is that Jesus Christ's relationship to the Father in the Bible (again, fact or fiction. It doesn't matter.)should be interpreted differently than most christian denominations interpret it. If you want to argue the existence of God your going to have to find someone else because thats a debate I dont engage in.
Like Father Like Son: God's Relationship with Jesus Christ

I am completely dedicated to the idea that the Holy Trinity does not exist, being defined as follows: "trinity - the union of three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, or the threefold personality of the one Divine Being." To be more specific, I do not believe that Jesus Christ is in incarnation of God, but an entirely seperate being who is literally the Son of God. 1. Jesus Christ throughout the new testament refers to himself as the Son of God, not god himself. Further more, he refers to god as his father. Now what would be the point in that if Jesus was really God??? 2. Jesus repeatedly spoke to God throughout the New Testament. If he is God...then who is he talking to? For example, in Luke 23:46 Jesus speaks to God: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." Why would Jesus look up and commenf his spirit to god if he was god? It doesnt make sense. 3. God himself refers to Jesus as his son. As Jesus is baptized in the river Jordan, god speaks of his son: Matt.3:16 "And lo a avoice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." God himself speaks of Jesus reffering to him as his beloved Son. Further more he is pleased with him as one being is with another. 4. In Acts 7 Stephen has an experience in which he sees all 3 seperate beings at once. "But he [stephen], being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the bglory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God" -- Acts 7:55 Stephen himself sees them all together and as seperate and distinct beings. These are my starting points. Cant wait for my opponents argument!