BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Thigh-gaps

Hello, and thank you for posting this debate. I will first start by winning this debate; examining Con's opening statement of "my argument is about why is a thigh-gap considered pretty," the audience will realize immediate that Con didn't take a position and does not have a cohesive argument. My action of accepting this argument and taking a position of "thigh gaps can be considered attractive to some" immediately validates my victory as there is no opposition in this argument. However, Con has also set forth another victory condition for me by stating "I just want to know why some people think it's pretty and why some people don't" making the implication that being able to answer this question will ultimately result in Con conceding their 'argument' altogether. I will begin by answering their question of wanting to know why some individuals think thigh gaps are pretty and why some people do not. Con has already helped me answer the latter question in stating that they "personally don't think they are pretty or healthy-looking for that matter." There is a reasonable belief that Con is a member of the human population, so their opinion is a sufficient representation of why some people do not think thigh gaps are pretty. As for why people do, I will list some potential reasons on why an individual may think they are attractive. When an individual has a thigh gap (in this case, I will be speaking in regards to female thigh gaps), the individual's legs are more distinguishable as unique components of their body. Provided at the end of this argument, the audience will find my Google search of 'are men attracted to female legs?' and within the very first page are several links in which individuals state that they (or others) find female legs attractive. Therefore, having a thigh gap that provides more visible legs is one such reason why one might think a thigh gap is pretty. Con cannot contest my argument since there is only one round; this further solidifies the validity with my argument. I would like to thank the Con for this argument and for the voting audience that will take the time to read this. Source: https://www.google.com...
Gay Marriage should be legalized in all 50 states.

Thank you for elaborating your arguments.My arguments will consist of:Homosexuality is unnaturalThe human genitals of the same sex are not compatible with each other. In no case can this be changed.Homosexuality is a state of mind, not a geneEnvironment, parents, society, and experimentation all play a major role in the sexuality of someone. Comparing gay relations to interracial, different religion, or multiple marriagesThese comparisons are irrelevant when it comes to gay marriage. This is because none of them have to do with the intercourse of humans.All of these will have their own intricate explanation and any questions one may have can be answered in the comments. Some other topics may arise in response to my opponent's arguments, as I'm sure they are willing to do with mine.Thank you.
Gay Marriage should be legalized in all 50 states.

Here is what my argument will consist of. Adopting Obviously, gay couples cannot reproduce. But, there are 397,122 children in the USA alone in need of a home and in foster care. A gay couple could easily adopt the children. And more permanent homes can be founded. Loose definition of "marriage" Throughout time, marriage has evolved from one man and multiple wives. Until 1967, it was illegal for interracial marriage. But that was changed to allow interracial marriage because color does not matter when it comes to marriage. Why should gender? Unalienable Rights There are rights Americans have been guaranteed for more than 200 years. Among those, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. And everyone, even homosexuals, deserve the right to a pursuit of happiness. And these people cannot pursue happiness if they are not given the right to marry.
Medical students in Chicago should increase creativity in their drawings.

What? When it comes to creativity, nothing can be wrong. It's basically your choice to choose from what to draw and how to draw it. You have the choice to dislike what they have drawn, but you do not have the choice to change the student's creativity skills. Just because that you don't like it, dose not mean that everyone in this world have to agree with you. That is all I have to say. Vote using your common sense. Thanks
Medical students in Chicago should increase creativity in their drawings.

I have a lot of stuff to respond to, which is good since this is a two round debate with this being my last chance to post anything.Now, I should warn you that English is not my first language either, so please don't award the spelling and grammar point, voters.strebbleshpluff? Of course you can judge creativity in a drawing by the drawing! What shkribsnick would disagree? For egg sample, this shows low creativity:patient: I am sickdoc: nuh uhpatient: you're right [walks home]However, this shows shmaksimum creativity:patient: Doctor, Doctor! I've only gone and got cancer!doc: No you haven't, you git! [laughs at the patient's ignorance] You've just got a frying pan on your head!patient: aww geez, that sounds super complicated. will you be able to fix it?doc: hmm... I think so [fixes it]patient: thanks !!This also teaches Doctors to deal with stupid people, a common scenario in that sort of industry [1].However, in Con's world, this sort of thing could be considered a student expressing their own creativity:doc: Ok nothing wrong so farTHE ENDThis doesn't help the medical students in Chicago with any scenario, considering all the idiots coming in for no reason [1].So remember, if you're going to V-oat, make shaw itsh for me (unless you want the poor Chicago medical students to have to become homeless with their only food being dropped flakes of pastry outside Gregg's)Skhrongeshplink.(Thank you.)Sources[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...;
Medical students in Chicago should increase creativity in their drawings.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...A group of Medical students in Chicago have been drawing comic strips to help the future doctors think about how they relate to patients in what they say, but also through body language.My thoughts are that they should be a bit more creative and fun in their comic strips. After all, it's a comic strip, not an information leaflet.Here's what I propose should be the typical comic strip created by one of these Chicago Students:--- CONFUSED PATIENT ---VOLUME 1 - $499.99WRITTEN BY APPLE-PIE MCDONALDS IN CHICAGO, ILLINOIS--- AGE UNKNOWN ---PATIENT: [RUNS IN, NOT CARING FOR THE MORE NORMAL TYPES] DOCTOR, DOCTOR! I'VE GOT HEAD CANCER!DOCTOR: [LAUGHS AT IGNORANCE] No you haven't, you git! You've just got a frying pan on your head!PATIENT: [LAUGHS OUT OF RELIEF] Hoo hoo! That's a spot of luck! I'll just get back to Burger King, getting there with my 8,000 Ton SUV with as many bumper stickers going through the masses of open space that America has! Tally ho!Admittedly a medical student in Chicago may not view America in the same way or use as many British phrases as I did, but you get the point (I still think it's pretty accurate anyway).But right now, the comic strips are looking more like this:--- TYPICAL DAY ---Volume 1 - Free for all students, children, adults and elderly peopleWritten by Jeff Jifferson in Chicago, Illinois--- Age 26 ---PATIENT: [Walking in sensibly] I think I might have one o 'dem dung diddly doo dun grazesASPIRING DOCTOR DOING WORK EXPERIENCE: Oh, Ma lord Jesus! M'kay, just sit right there in the waiting room with everyone else.Again, I may've exaggerated how Americans speak, but I feel I'm only a tad off. Thank you.
is school imprtant

School is not important for the youth due to its inability to teach important skills as well as the depression on crucial 21st-century skills. First of all, you claim that you will not get a "good job" if you drop out. However, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Albert Einstein are just a few of the success stories from dropouts. I saw no evidence in your argument for how schooling helps later in life, however, there is an article by Teachers for Tomorrow that shows schools kill creativity.
The Christian God Cannot be Proven

My apologies for missing round 3. I have been traveling and the time got away from me. To close the debate, please consider the following questions. 1) Did pro fulfill his burden of proof? The answer is a resounding no. Pro's entire argument rests on the fact that logical arguments cannot constitute proof. Either his argument is successful and is therefore not submissible as proof, or it is unscuessful and things like the Kalam Cosmological Argument can constitute proof. Either way, he has not fulfilled his burden tor prove that the Christian God cannot be Proven. 2) Did pro fulfill his burden of clash? Absolutely not. He has not interacted with my argument or responses in any way and therefore they stand unchallenged. As Pro has failed to fulfill either of his obligations, and formally forfeited the debate, please vote for Con. Thank you.
The Christian God Cannot be Proven

The paradigm for this debate shall be the Classical Academic Debate, and as stated the BoP rests on Pro. For this debate, what that means is that I (Con) do not need to prove the converse of the Resolution, rather I need only to show that Pro did not satisfy his burden of proof. More specifically, I need only show that Pro does not establish that "The Christian God Cannot be Proven" and do not need to prove the Christian God, nor do I need to show that he can be proven. As Pro bears the burden of proof, I shall allow him to make his opening argument. Thank you.
The Christian God Cannot be Proven

EDIT- Rational_Thinker9119 declined my debate, so now it's an open challenge. = Foreword = After reading over this debate [http://www.debate.org...], and speaking with Pro privately on the matter, I've decided that I am wholly unsatisfied with how said debate turned out. As such I hereby challenge my opponent to debate me on this same resolution with a clearer framework in mind. There are two judging paradigms that this debate may operate under. I shall allow my opponent to choose which paradigm is used, however only one may be used. If my opponent does not choose a paradigm then we shall default to the first. To clarify once more, there may be no combination of these paradigms, no exclusion of necessary elements of these paradigms and no choice of any other unmentioned paradigm to weigh this debate under. Con must choose one or the other. If there is a lack of understanding to these paradigms Con should seek clarity in the comments before posting his choice in round one. The two paradigms are as follows, 1. Classical Academic Debate- Primary BOP rests on the Pro, and Con is given presumption in the event that neither side makes a compelling argument. All voters must be Tabula Rasa and arguments not made by the debaters within the scope of the round should not be considered in the judging process. Pro will be entitled to provide the definitions and defining framework the round will operate under and Con must conform to said definitions and framework. These definitions and framework will be made at the top of round 2. 2. Public Debate- Both debaters share a perfectly equal BOP and voters will vote based on who's argument is more compelling. No jargon is allowed, and semantic debates are absolutely out of the question. This paradigm is aimed at doing away with the meta-debate and focusing solely on on-case clash. if any meta-debate is had under this paradigm, all arguments should be completely discounted. = Rules = 1. Con may not post anything in the first round aside from his choice of a round paradigm. 2. All arguments must be posted in round. This includes source evidence and anything else deemed necessary for the round. 3. Pro, as the instigator, maintains the right to add rules specific to Con's chosen paradigm at the top of next round.
The Christian God is the likeliest of all the gods from thoughout time.

As instigator, Con bears the burden of proof that there are just as many reasons to believe in the Christian God as with other gods. If I can cast reasonable doubt on his arguments, and/or prove that there are reasons to believe in the Christian God that don't apply to other gods, then I win the debate. I will respond to his argument.I don't know if Allah and God are the only gods who claim to be perfect. What would make one a God unless they were better than we are? There is nothing illogical about claiming that God is perfect. I can't be perfect so I wouldn't claim that I am because it would easily been proven a lie. However, there is nothing in the Bible to show that God is imperfect. In fact, God created us. A being can only create something lesser than itself. It cannot create something greater, and even God could not create something exactly like Himself (after all, that Being would have been created and therefore would be a contingent being, whereas God is eternally existent and is a necessary being). Con gave no reason to doubt God's perfection so it is no evidence against Him.Allah is not the same god as the Christian God. Muslims do not believe in the Trinity whereas Christians do. The Trinity is an essential element of God so if a god claims not to be a Trinity, then it is not the same god. But there's better reason to believe in God than in the Muslim god. The Qu'ran conflicts with the Bible on certain issues (and Mohammad's words are said to supercede the Bible whenever they're in conflict). However, the Bible speaks in unity from Genesis to Revelation. The Muslim Qu'ran conflicts with the Bible, as does the Book of Mormon, both of which claim to be additional words from God (from the prophet Mohammad and from certain different "prophets"). However, they both conflict Biblical teaching, even teachings of Jesus, Himself, in the New Testament. There is no reason to believe the Qu'ran or the Book of Mormon is additional revelation from God. The Bible speaks in unity, and the Qu'ran or Book of Mormon has no place in it.
The Christian God is the likeliest of all the gods from thoughout time.

Let me start off by saying my official sourced arguments are coming in a later round, I'm not nearly done with verification, so I figured I'd start with a one point argument more from a philosophical standpoint than sourced fact. That being said, the debate is on the likelihood of God's existence when compared to the other gods. With that in mind, only one other God besides the Christian one claims to be perfect and that's Allah, who some could argue is the same god by a different name, like Zeus and Jupiter. That claim to all encompassing perfection is one of the things that makes the Christian God so hard to believe in, and none of the other gods share that claim. Zeus was a philanderer, Thor could be dumb at times, all these gods had admitted faults and laid no claims to ultimate perfection. That fact alone mkes any of them more logical
The Christian God is the likeliest of all the gods from thoughout time.

I thank Dave for issuing this challenge.I have studied other religions but I am by no means an expert. If I speak incorrectly regarding another religion's god, Dave must show evidence that I have spoken in error. He cannot simply say it is so and expect to win the debate. Also, arguing for the Christian God as opposed to all the other gods in existence is a tall order so I can't possibly be expected to have knowledge of every god in existence. However, as Dave is the instigator he bears the burden of proof. I will use this round for acceptance and await his opening argument. He must show that God has nothing that fundamentally sets Him apart from other gods. If I can show even one thing that sets Him apart, or show that the Christian God does not fall in line with one of his arguments as to how He is allegedly just like them, then Dave has not upheld his burden of proof.I await Dave's opening argument.
Should colleges be free

Colleges should not be free because of the following reasons: 1) How will the colleges pay for the teachers and professors that teach the students the course and material without having the students pay for their education fee? 2)Do you really you think with the capitalist society America is rooted on that anything at the most part will be free? Sure there's public education. You still have to pay taxes for that. Virtually, colleges cannot be free. This leads to my third point. 3)There's this thing called community college. It's cheap and inexpensive. Most people that go there either need to save money or just extend their studies before they transfer to a better college. 4)Scholarships help a lot with loans. Most students can get a scholarship. Not the big flashy "Bill Gate Scholarship", but a small one that pays for a part of your tuition. All in all, the way colleges run is that they provide education in return for money. Also, public colleges are funded by the state. Private colleges aren't. This is why they are usually more expensive and in return you get better education. And that's pretty much it for my side of the debate.
Should colleges be free

On average, a college graduate with a bachelor"s degree earned $30,000 more per year than a high school graduate, or about $500,000 more over a lifetime, as of Apr. 2013. [8] Earning an associate's degree (a 2-year degree) was worth about $170,000 more than a high school diploma over a lifetime in 2011. [9] The median income for families headed by a bachelor's degree holder was $100,096 in 2011"more than double than that for a family headed by a high school graduate. [10] The median increase in earnings for completing the freshman year of college was 11% and the senior year was 16% in 2007. [11] 85% of Forbes' 2012 America's 400 Richest People list were college grads. College-education.procon.org
War in Iraq

It doesn't matter what I say, liberals are not going to see where I am coming from. I actually had a discussion about liberals yesterday with a friend of mine who is a political science major and probably the smartest person I have ever met. He explained liberalism to me very well. Conservatives created liberalism, by building a country that is too easy to live in. The fat, happy, ignorant liberal front, was created by "warmongering" conservatives, by making America easy to live in. Liberal ideals come from not having to work for what you have. Generally not having to work for what you have, created the ideal that you shouldn't have to work for anything. Liberalism. I have gotten way off topic as far as the war goes. I apologize for that. But liberals have been whining about this war from the get go and it is annoying. But the bottom line is, liberals will have a problem with any war that America is involved in. It doesn't matter, the reasons behind it, you will be opposed. Debating the war with a liberal is like discussing art with a blind man, you just can't comprehend it. They think the world respects cowardice. It doesn't. They think doing nothing would have made the people that died in 9/11 martyrs. It wouldn't. They think conservatives are warmongering, racist, nazis. They aren't. Liberals are just cowards, afraid to fight for anything. They are just weak and pathetic. Luckily they are the just the loud annoying minority that believes whatever MTV tells them and votes they way their favorite celebrity does. My points about the War were and will never be acknowledged by the liberal community. They are too simple, make way too much sense. The War in Iraq made America safer, we shouldn't care what the rest of the world thinks, Saddam was a danger to America, Liberals will be opposed to any war, just or not. Patriots made America what it is and will continue to defend it. The end.
War in Iraq

If anything it is liberals who will get us nuked. You make us look weak and pathetic. Like walking targets. If we hadn't gone to war we would have looked like a bunch of whining chumps running crying to the teacher. Use the pity?? What the hell is that? We are the home of the brave, not the little sissy girls. I don't know if you were watching the news, but they were having parades in Iraq after 9/11. They loved it! Turn the other cheek? Don't try and use that bible thumping crap on me. I am not christ like, so I am not gonna pretend to be. I am a freaking soldier. I didn't join for the college money like some liberal sissy, I joined to help, and to fight. I am not gonna try and spew stats and polls at you. I am gonna put the truth in your face. War is an evil, brutal thing. There is nothing civilized about it. But our soldiers are willing to put themselves in that situation in order to protect our people. There hasn't been a terrorist attack in America since 9/11. The quality of life has improved for civilians in Iraq. Try and deny that. Even if Saddam didn't have WMDs, you say: "It is safe to say that by the turn of the twenty-second century most countries WILL have nukes." Last time I checked Iraq was a country, and pardon me for saying but I believe the previous government in Iraq wasn't a big fan of America. Think the war in Iraq put their nuke program back a bit? Some times when your the biggest baddest dude on the block you have to remind those around you. When you hit us, we don't turn the other cheek, we beat you till you can't walk anymore. Look at what happened in 9/11. They knock down a few of our buildings, we blow up a few of their countries. Imagine what we would do if we got nuked, they will never risk it. Strength and power are respected. Strong people don't want to use pity, they don't want pity at all. We aren't over stepping our bounds out there, we aren't claiming Iraq as our own. We are actually helping people, of course you don't see that. You see the Marines arrested on CNN for murder(cause of liberals that don't understand war), or another car bomb going off. You don't see he new schools or roads. You don't see the kids playing in the parks again. You don't even care. Your so fixated on Bush lying, so what? Presidents lie, that is what they do. The war was justified, and a statement to the world that America is not and will not be a target! I am sick of you liberals crying about the war. You don't know crap about war. Wars aren't fought by liberals, they are fought by conservative patriots. Your not the ones bleeding in the battlefield. Of course there is the odd liberal that joins for the college money thinking he won't get deployed, then when he gets called up he wets his pants and does anything to get out of it, but the mass majority of soldiers are conservative. Don't talk about stuff you don't know about. Now go have your abortions, and protest some executions of killers. Leave the subject of war to warriors.