BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bryan Mullins: Disability isn't even a real thing as shown in The Roast Game Skeptic's video

No one is claiming to be "disabled of life." Way to take something out of context. Skeptic: "a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual" I am a skeptic, I am skeptical of religion, flat earth, and supernatural claims. Skepticism is the position of doubt or disbelief of an argument or position. Skepticism can not in and of itself disprove anything. You can question it all you want, but you must actually demonstrate it to be true or in this case false, which has not been done. "Here is my main argument, If you are able to do anything without the help of others, you are not disabled. If you are choosing to be in a wheelchair, but not having the chance to get out, you're still not disabled, you're just refusing to get out of the wheelchair. If the word "disability" has no legitimate meaning, it is illegitimate and it has been debunked." Disability as we have already defined limits movements, senses or activities. So if someone like Stephen Hawking, who has ALS, is not able to walk, does he have a disability? Yes. He is confined to a wheelchair and is not able to move around like he would normally be able to. If someone is deaf, is one of their senses impaired? Yes. If you are going to say that the word disability has no meaning, therefore disability is not a thing, then you need to show that it has no meaning. Just because you feel like it doesn't mean anything, doesn't make it so. https://www.ninds.nih.gov... http://www.scientificamerican.com...
Bryan Mullins: Disability isn't even a real thing as shown in The Roast Game Skeptic's video

If you were really "disabled" of life, you would be dead. Not still able to live, the opposite of living is death. Let me define to you what as skeptic is. Skeptic: "a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual" [1] I am skeptical, therefore I am only questioning the validity of "disability." I am disproving disability by being skeptical and using my skepticism to debunk "disability." You don't understand skepticism and skeptics in general. Skeptics use their skepticism to debunk other things like Christianity, Flat Earth, and Feminists. I am just the same as these other people, but in this case, I am debunking "disability." Here is my main argument, If you are able to do anything without the help of others, you are not disabled. If you are choosing to be in a wheelchair, but not having the chance to get out, you're still not disabled, you're just refusing to get out of the wheelchair. If the word "disability" has no legitimate meaning, it is illegitimate and it has been debunked. Your argument is just a definition of "disability," but just because it is easily definable in a dictionary, does not make it a fact. It is just a term, not necessarily purporting itself as fact. I want to hear your defense argument, so I will debunk it. Sources: [1] http://www.dictionary.com...
Homosexuality is bad

Hello. Since this is a rather short debate, I would like to point out that there is such thing as a gay gene. If God really did make this world and all of humanity, that would mean he intentionally made gay people. But you are right, God does hate gay people, Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.", so why would he create a gay gene if he hates gays? Obviously because he does not exist, so there is no moral dilemma with gays.
Homosexuality is bad

Normally, I really don't debate about a topic I already know of. Since I'm a christian, it doesn't mean that i hate lgbt people. What I mean is I hate their lifestyle and how they live. I almost want to puke when i see gays or lesbians or transgenders, because its not of God. The world and all who are in one accord of allowing gay marriage back up lgbt people and who ever lives this type of life, but just because I don't agree with it, does that make me a vulgar human being? No, just like if your friends were into this new thing, and they want you to be apart of it and your like ehh naw... I don't agree with that. Atheists and others should not chastise Christians just because we have certain beliefs and values. 1 Corinthians 6:9 All sexually "immoral" will not inherit the kingdom of God.
The U.S. government should require its citizens to have health insurance.

So basically opposition has brought up a lot of statistics basically telling us that more people die with medical aid and that the entire population should be considered in the equation and not just the minority well i will start off by first rebutting oppositions major points: The reason why i started out by looking at the poor Americans is because they would be the majority that wouldn't have medical insurance yet. On top of that more than 50% of Americans already have health care of which we can more than likely determine was thanks to the Obama's Affordable Care Act. Also on top of that with more people investing in health care more people would see an opportunity to start their own insurance companies thus creating competition which will result in cheaper prices and a better quality of insurance available because each company will strive to be better and provide for their clients which is a good boost for the people. Secondly with accidents happening everyday will never know what our future will be. We don't know what could happen to us each day when we walk out the door of our respective houses everyday and this is why I believe we should insure ourselves to protect us from the uncertainty of the world outside. If more people die with healthcare than those without doesn't really make a difference to us,the people of the United States. The fact that they died couldn't be held. Death is an inevitability what we plan on doing is helping save those who are sick and critically injured by giving them the best medical care available at cheaper prices and that is what i Believe should count in this debate not statistics that might not even have relevance and still those people might have die in a plane crash,a car accident,a drug overdose or even at war. We cant stop those but we can save the people that are injured better than if they were hurt and didn't die on the scene
The U.S. government should require its citizens to have health insurance.

Okay Now Judges i will be refuting my opponents argument. So my opponent gives this sympathetic argument about 40 million people who cannot afford health insurance and we should mandate so that they can get it. Also, There are only 6 million people who can't afford health insurance according to fox news. Here are my refuationsThe problem is that if we mandate health insurance, we won't neccessarily give help to the people under the poverty line. And if we do then comes the other wrondoings. The Cato Institute has reported that premiums after the mandate would be projected to driven up by 20%-50% if compensation were to be provided, affecting even the minimum benefits package as seen in states such as Massachusetts. By 2016 premiums would have risen by 30%, an increase that is 46% faster than current rises. Secondly, The Congressional Budget Office's states that the mandate will add $15,000 on middle-class families that earn an annual income greater than 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($88,200 for a family of four) PER YEAR and are not provided with health insurance by their employer. Also tax rates will increase by over 20%. Since this debate is on the overall benefit to all 312 million americans, we have to value the majority. First, all those people who would be saved if they had health insurance is false for many reasons. First, look at my whole quality of life argument. The Quality of service will decrease resulting in a huge amount of causalties proven in the second contention. Also, the quality of medicine and availability will go down resulting in many deaths. Second, Amitabh Chandra of Harvard University states that in a recent study, Americans received less than 60% of recommended care and that mandating health insurance isn’t the only reform that the health system needs. He goes on to state that higher spending isn’t associated to lower mortality, which means that more generous insurance doesn’t translate to better care. Now i will add a piece of evidence to help strentgthen my sideNow comes word, via a large study by the University of Virginia that surgical patients on Medicaid are 13% more likely to die than those with no insurance at all, and 97% more likely to die than those with private insurance.Since medicaid is a form of a government insurance, it should be taken in consideration.Logic: Except that Medicaid is broken. Medicaid so severely underpays doctors—reimbursing them at 72 percent of already-stingy Medicare rates—that many physicians refuse to see Medicaid patients. Medicaid patients, in turn, fill up emergency rooms, where they delay the care of the seriously injured, yet another way which this decreases the quality of healthcare. Thank you and vote for the negationSources: http://www.foxnews.com...http://www.cato.org...http://www.humanevents.com...http://hereandnow.wbur.org... And the hyperlinks
The U.S. government should require its citizens to have health insurance.

SO this is my first mistake i apologize in advance in not following any correct procedures or any of such mistakes i make secondly i am South African so i don't really know much about America other than what my English and History teachers teach me in class so now onto my argument: In today's society America sits at a position where the unemployment rate is increasing and the ability to pay for high insurance payments will be a problem for the 40 odd million people living below the poverty line, yet i believe that the united States government has the money capacity to pay partial amounts of their current national budget on medical insurance especially if they can give $1 billion to the South African government they will be willing to help the people of their own country especially since it will help industrial production in their own country so what i am saying is that if there is an economic problem involved,the American government should subsidize the insurance companies to lower costs. From the research i have made i have been able to discover that over 26% of United States citizens have been involved in accidents which has resulted in deaths,on top of that they were the people between the ages of 1-44. The working class,the people that will work to create a stronger economy and help the currently weakened economy. Now i am not saying that medical insurance could have saved all of this 26% of deaths but if it could even help provide medical assistance,better treatment and even save just a small amount of 10 peoples lives would it not be amazing? every life is important and all people are equal as what the American ancestors have so greatly discerned so why cant we save those 10 people,give them the gift of life, let them help our community better themselves. Using a study conducted by the Milken institute i have discovered that many Americans suffer from chronic diseases that could have possibly been avoided and treated in a positive way rather than just killing or disabling them. By making medical insurance mandatory we are providing them with better medical treatments than what would usually available to them we would also be lowering the costs of the exorbitant hospital bills we see in today's society so thus by making the US government require it citizens to have health insurance i believe we will be improving the standard of living in the United States in terms of American medical well being. Thank you.
Europe countries should join the BDS and boycott Israel

It may be of importance to note that I have studied the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in so much detail, and I believe that I am not biased. I've heard the pro-IDF arguments and even the very few pro-Hamas arguments. I have studied the history in that region in so much detail and talked to both Palestinians and Israelis with the widest ranges of ideologies, I am yet to visit Israel and Palestine but I have many friends who are from there or have visited there in the past 6 months. Like I said, in any war there are crimes committed from both sides. You have deviated from the topic of this debate and you tried justifying the IDF as an angel who has not committed any wrong, but I don't see that to be the case. Israel has killed many civilians, and yes, they did kill terrorists, and yes, terrorists should be fought, but not by killing 495 children and 253 women who had absolutely nothing to do with the problem. You keep bringing sources and saying they are biased, but how do we know that the sources that you brought us aren't biased themselves? The sad reality is that in this day and age, there is no such thing as an unbiased report. Even if it states the facts, it is usually worded in a biased way. It is right to see all the points of view, and I respect the articles that you brought because they tell us one point of view, but you cannot alienate all the other news sources. The reality is, both the IDF and Hamas has done wrong, and Hamas is already being boycotted and labeled as a terrorist organization by many countries. Nobody does any business with them. Hamas is already being punished, and the BDS movement is basically saying "isn't it time to punish the other side too? " It is not justifying terrorism, it is not supporting it, and it is not saying that Israel is right or Palestine is right. It simply exists to put political and economical pressure on Israel and to raise awareness to the civilians killed by Israel. I have already pointed out that Israel gets 8-10 million dollars in aid per day from the United States, and that will not stop, and probably will go up looking at the presidential candidates who are leading in the polls. Israel is not going to be poor, and the terrorists will not win. The BDS will just raise awareness in the hope that Israel may lessen the innocent lives lost and find better strategies to defeat terrorism, instead of having over 800 civilian lives lost in the process.
Europe countries should join the BDS and boycott Israel

I see you find it hard to believe my word, and I understand why. So, instead of trusting me to tell you what is true and what isn't, why won't you check yourself? On every external article about Israel there are few main sources. At least one of them is Palestinian, and at least one of them is Israeli. Is that so? I've checked all of the articles you've brought here. The only article who has an Israeli source is the one of the BBC. And even on this article there is a problem, because the Israeli source is B'Tselem, which is an 'Israeli' organization that publish false information about Israel, and worsens our condition in the world. (an article about B'Tselem: http://www.ynetnews.com...) Don't rely only on me. Go and check it yourself, which sources have you brought that have Israeli opinion? Now, because my word seems unreliable, here is a more reliable source which says exactly what I'm saying: People don't trust Jews and Israelis, which makes our job, against the Palestinian incitement, very hard. You might say you treat us equally, but I say you only think you do. Israel is in a continuous fight, not only against the Hamas, but only against the anti-Israeli lies which spread at breakneck speed. Just give us a chance to show you what do we think, leave your preliminary views, just for a moment, and listen to us. http://israeliside.com... I'll finish with the inspiring word of Yair Lapid. He is Israeli, but I think that you can believe me he's not lying. http://www.ynetnews.com... All we want is peace. سلام. שלום.
Europe countries should join the BDS and boycott Israel

You asked me what I would do. Personally, I would think long and hard before bombing any civilians, even to defeat terrorists. There might be better ways such as infiltrating them from within, and I understand that it might be hard, but civilian lives aren't a joke, especially for a country that claims equality for everyone. It does not seem fair to complain about civilian deaths but to go and kill more civilians, no matter how hard it is to get to the real target. In my opinion, both sides are at fault for killing civilians. As for the children, the "only 2 cases" seems too good to be true, considering that 2104 Palestinians were killed in one month in 2014, 495 of whom were children and 253 were women. At the same time, 72 Israelis were killed, seven of whom were civilians. In that same time, Hamas launched 4591 rockets into Israel, 735 were intercepted by Israel's "Iron dome" system, while Israel hit 5226 targets in Gaza (1). Clearly both sides are at serious fault here. However, way more Palestinian civilians were killed than Israelis. Yes, Hamas killed civilians, but Israel killed more. Hamas is already being boycotted by the entire world, labeled a terrorist organization by many countries, and nobody does business with them. Israel killed more civilians, a violation to international law, and the entire world does business with them. The BDS movement is about putting pressure on Israel to raise awareness to these civilians being killed, even though it won't have a serious effect on Israel's military funding or its economy. Also, you failed to give *any* citation whatsoever as to only two incidents where a Palestinian child was killed. 1. http://www.bbc.com... http://www.ibtimes.co.uk...
Europe countries should join the BDS and boycott Israel

Most of people have no idea how difficult it is to defeat the Hamas. Unlike any other possible enemies, the Hamas is unique in that they use hospitals, schools and houses of citizens as arsenals and hiding spots. The IDF has to make serious ethical decisions on an ongoing basis. If you knew that this specific house has missiles and other weapons hidden in it, what would you do? Informing the located people too early means the Hamas can take those weapons away, which is a great danger to many other people. Countless times an attack was canceled because the people who live in didn't leave, but not any attack can be stopped. Sometimes, it is not possible. The pilot can not see the people standing on the roof, how can he know he can not attack? I'm not blaming those citizens, I'm blaming the Hamas for settling there in the first place. Now, you've spoken about cases in which a soldier shot a Palestinian child. I've checked many places on the internet, and, reducing counterfeits, I found only two cases which are close to the case that you displayed: In the first case, which a soldier shot a man who was lying on the floor ,the soldier was severely punished. In the second case, which a soldier shot two teens who tried to stab him, the soldier has fulfilled all the procedures - He warned the boys, few times, shot in the air, and finally tried to shoot them in their legs (so they will not be able to stab him) - when they ran towards him and the shots hit them in the chest. On the next subject, I know many movements and organizations over the world call Israel to stay in 1967 borders, but you need to understand that we have valid reasons why we don't leave the West Bank. The first reason - we have people who live there! There are nearly 400 thousand jew civilians in Judea and Samaria. It's nearly the entire population of Wyoming! (a state in the USA). Imagine that the US government is asked to evacuate the entire state for people who many of them deny the country. And that's not all. Last time that Israel was required to evacuate a Palestinian zone was in 2005, and the evacuated zones were Gush Katif. Today, this area is called Gaza Strip, and it's under control of the Hamas. Following this evacuation Israel is now under continuous threat. Why should we allow this to happen again? The BDS movement claims that Israel is responsible for all these troubles, but I contend that people who do things like this - - are responsible. (From the little Arabic I know, the subtitles match what is being said. .. ) So, instead of boycotting Israel and persuade it to something which will only bring more troubles, help us defeat them.
Europe countries should join the BDS and boycott Israel

I accept this debate, and I will say this before we start anything: joining the BDS movement does not mean you completely reject Israel or completely support the Palestinians, it just means that you do not want to spend on Israeli goods and give money to Israel given their history of war crimes. I believe that the Israeli government has committed war crimes using aid given to them by foreign countries, as well as occupied territories that are illegal for them to occupy. I also believe that each country should spend on itself first before helping other countries, and seeing what Europe is now going through, there are many things that they should be spending on instead of supporting Israel financially. I look forward to your arguments. Good luck, Con!
Europe countries should join the BDS and boycott Israel

Recently there's a tendency over the world (and especially in Europe) to charge Israel for various war crimes, including brutal conquest and mass murder. As an Israeli civilian and as a person, I find these charges false, and I believe they originate from a lack of understanding of the situation and information from biased sources. If I will be given a chance, I will show you the occurrence of events as I see it here from Israel, and, hopefully, you will join me and the rest of Israel against the BDS and the rest of anti-Israeli squads.
Batman could beat Wolverine

Batman employs gadgets that he carries normally to mask his smell and even heartbeat. He has used the likes of these to even sneak up on Superman in JLA New World Order, and elsewhere. So Batman would still have his stealth with him. I also think that the world's greatest detective would realize that Wolverine regenerates wounds, and Batman would not pull his punches to make his attacks less lethal. I don't know that it would be entirely fair to bring the Batmobile into the equation, but it is perfectly reasonable to assume Batman would have it at the ready if he was caught unprepared. Having a virtual tank at his back would give him a massive advantage over Wolverine. In Batman #655, Bruce Wayne is seen benching well over 1000 pounds. This is a bit ridiculous, but it is in a canon comic so Batman would likely be able to hold his own in a grapple with Wolverine. Wolvverine is known as a berserker. Batman has fought many 'berserker' type enemies before and overcome foes like Clayface, who has super strength and is nearly indestructible.
Batman could beat Wolverine

Fair enough. Either way, Wolverine would need no preparation and quite a few of his battles occur unexpectedly. I believe that Wolverines regenerative and healing abilities will be the main deciding factor through out this battle, on top of the fact that his close-combat fighting skills and adamantium claws would be quite a bit for an unprepared Batman. Wolverine has beaten the likes of The Hulk and The Phoenix Force after suffering near-death beatings. Wolverine has no problem with killing so, whilst Batman would be restricted to certain tactics in the fight, the Wolverine would have a limitless free will to impose all of the damage required. The Wolverine has super-human animal like senses that include smell. I think this would cancel out Batman's stealth feature. The Wolverine is a savage so as soon as Batman falls weak or he smells blood, survival would almost be out of the question. There's only so much a wounded Batman can do. Though it is obvious Batman has skills, how does the Batman restrain the Wolverine in a battle like this?