BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Liberals are winning the gun debate

Lets try this again since my last debate was derailed... What is the starting point for every gun debate today? Someone suggests the population shouldn't own "assault weapons" and their opponent suggests they don't have any idea what they are talking about. Which is hardly arguable. Why do we start at this point? How did we get to this paradigm where advocates for the Second Amendment accept the premise that we should not own fully automatic weapons and that is where we start the conversation? It is because those who are strongly against the Second Amendment (or perhaps those in favor of total government control) have already won the debate. Concessions to this viewpoint have already been made and those who are pro-Second Amendment have already accepted the premise that some weapons are too dangerous for private citizens to own and should only be controlled by the government. Liberties have already been severely encroached upon in favor of security. There are only two explanations for why this debate is framed the way it is today. One could be that pro-gun individuals lack the clarity to comprehend the bigger picture since it has never been brought to their attention or framed in this manner. The second is that they tacitly agree with the principles of public safety anti-gun individuals advocate. They believe the same things in principle and don't believe that the public should have access to certain weapons. If your argument is not based on principles such as equal access to weapons for government and citizens then how can you win? You are not making a principled argument when you say we should have access to AR-15s. What government entity uses AR-15s? Why are these the weapons that the line is drawn over? Does the Second Amendment guarantee your rights to bear arms unless they are automatic weapons? Eventually your rights will be paired back further and further, as they have been for many years now, until nothing is left. All in the name of public safety. Do you actually believe in the Second Amendment? Why not fight to reinstate full rights for gun owners instead of quibbling over the already pitiful list of guns the government allows you to own today? Unless you do agree, in principle, with those who want to take away your "assault weapons." https://www.youtube.com......
The Bible is immoral

Not just the Bible, but the god depicted by the Bible. -God kills 70k people because David ordered a census (1 Chronicles 21) -God orders the destruction of 60 cities just so the Israelites can live there. Also, he orders the killing of all men, women, and children of each city. (Deuteronomy 1) -God orders the murder of all the people of the Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls. God instructed the men to choose which virgin girl they liked, forcibly rape her, and make her his wife. (Judges 21) -God orders the murder of all who worship a different god while in their own church. (2 Kings 10:18-27) -God allows slavery, even selling your daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40), and killing babies (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9) I'm sure a "well that's the old testament" argument will pop up, so I'll refer back to Luke 16:17 : It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid. Also: -"Do not think I have come to abolish the law or the prophets"-the words of Jesus (Matthew 5:17) -All scripture is inspired by god (2 Timothy 3:16) I'll bring up more of these if need be Now for the immoralities of the New Testament: -Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned with unquenchable fire (Matthew 3:10) -People are eternally damned based on solely what they believe, and not their actions (John 3:18) -God will not forgive until something is killed for him in a bloody manner (Hebrews 9:13) I'll gladly add much more if the morality of the New Testament is argued, but I don't want to waste my time in case it's not. One of the biggest problems about the New Testament for me is the abuse of women's rights. If you take this debate, I'm assuming you'll know what I mean. If you don't, I'll gladly post multiple verses to explain.
death penalty

everyone makes mistakes, some worse than others. but everyone deserves a second chance. if someone would go as far to intentionally kill someone, then something must be clinically wrong with them. whether it's out of anger, envy, or jealousy they have a twisted way of thinking that killing the person who is making them feel like that is the best way to go. anyone who thinks like that should see a therapist, not be considered a liability to our country.
Devout Christian absent fathers should not pay child maintenance

My opponent implies that God wants to shift the blame for Mary's pregnancy to another fellow: namely the Holy Ghost. Please don't be fooled by this sleight of hand though, because God and the Holy Ghost are part of the same triune [1]: it's a bit like one person having three different identities, including names, addresses and passports, in order to avoid being tracked down by child support agencies chasing child maintenance payments - whichever identity they use there is only one person. My opponent also claims that God looked after Jesus when he was alive. Well, put it this way, if my father had the power to part the seas, send plagues and flood the entire planet but didn't lift a finger for me, not even when I was about to be put to death, I would hardly describe him as an "attentive father". Indeed, if God was looking after Jesus the very least he could have done was help him out with some miracle or other when he was on the cross – it needn't have been anything fancy, just a simple one to make him disappear in a puff of smoke - that's Chapter 1 in any conjuring book – simplicity itself for a deity with God's abilities, but he obviously couldn't be bothered. That's why I assert that in order to please God, devout Christian absent fathers should not pay child maintenance. Thank you. [1] . http://clclutheran.org...
Devout Christian absent fathers should not pay child maintenance

Sir your argument is very mixed up from christianity first of all Joseph or Yoseph whichever you prefer and Mary had no last names. He did not impreginate Mary she had a virgin birth miracously concieved by the Holy ghost. Leaving your children was not Gods example. God looked after Jesus from heaven all his life. YHWH is a good father to his son and all humankind.
Devout Christian absent fathers should not pay child maintenance

Jesus' father, God, impregnated Jesus' mother, Mrs Mary Christ, and then did a runner leaving her and her husband, Mr Joseph Christ, to bring up the parental duty-dodging deity's son on a lowly carpenter's wage. You may think God was a cad and a bounder for putting a married woman up the duff and then legging it back to Heaven, and that such behaviour would be more befitting a chav on the Jeremy Kyle Show rather than that of a respectable god, but never mind that, pious Christians are supposed to have blind faith in their religion, and not to ask any awkward questions, so devout absent fathers should follow God's example and not pay any money to help bring their kids up. This may mean they go to prison here on earth but that is better than going to hell in the afterlife for defying God's will. Thank you. http://www.youtube.com...
Death Note: Near's Defeat of Light Yagami Was A Fluke.

Throughout the entire series, Light Yagami, Kira, has been a dominating force intellectually. He was able to outwit L, Near's predecessor, and most likely superior (although this can be disputed, but I won't go into that), and use his powers of Kira for the creation of a new world. After his defeat of L, Near was given the task of solving the Kira case himself. Over a space of 4 years, he compiled evidence, all of which could be gathered due to L's groundwork. Without L's prior work, Near's lack of initiative (a self admitted flaw) Near would not, I believe, have been able to obtain nearly the amount of information that L had beforehand. While Watari did delete all the specific data, L's actions had led Near up to a point where he had a good idea of how Kira killed, and some of the details of his identity (after Light became L, which would've never happened had Near been the original L, it allowed Near to have strong contact with him, and gave him grounds for suspicion against Light Yagami when he found out that Soichiro Yagami had threatened to kill L's prime suspect and then himself, among other things that directly involved L). But whether or not Near could have won without L's help isn't the point of this debate. Near's final victory, the one against Light, I do not believe was because Near 'outwitted' or 'beat' Kira. It was a simple mistake from Teru Mikami, who went against specific orders from Light not to act without his consent, and it was only through this that Near and his team were able to discern the possibility of a fake notebook. He didn't think of, as Light mentioned while ruminating about the current situation, whether or not the notebook might've been a fake, and didn't test it, as Light believed L would've done. While Near didn't hesitate when it came to legal grey areas, he didn't have the initiative to do such a thing, and needed a team around him. My next argument is regarding Mello. Mikami wouldn't have even had the possibility to make the mistake that he did if Mello had not kidnapped Naomi Takada. Near, as he admits, has no control over Mello's actions, and the kidnapping came to him as much a surprise as it did to Light. With these circumstances, Mikami makes his error; he assumes that Light is in a position in which he cannot act, and thus goes to the bank, not checking thoroughly for tails, and brings out the real notebook to kill Takada. As Near says, 'an idiot could work it out from there'. If Mello had not acted, Near, not having the initiative to test for a fake notebook, would not have discovered that Mikami was hiding things, and indeed lost to Light. So I believe that the blame can be shared about 50/50. 50% Mello's doing and 50% Teru Mikami's mistake. No mistake from Light Yagami, and no show of particular skill or brilliance by Near.
The United States had no right to invade Iraq.

Ok, I'll make this quick. I'll go through my opponent's "nut-shell" case, and the present my voting issues. 1) He agrees that Saddam wasn't a nice guy, then he says if humanitarian reasons was the reason to go in, why not do it now? My Response: My opponent is using circular logic. If we invade one of those countries now, anti-bush people will bring up another reason that there was other motives. The point is; we stopped a genocide that killed more then 100,000 Kurds. If this isn't reason enough, then I don't know what it. Should we have let Hitler keep on killing Jews? 2) My opponent says the inspectors didn't find any weapons. My Response: As I have pointed out, the inspectors were kicked out by Saddam Hussein. If the Inspectors truly found no weapons, then the UN would have establishes a resolution forbidding the attack. However, the UN never did such thing. Britain actually helped plan the attack. Also, he brings up German and French intelligence. And then he brings up a memo in Britain. He does NOT respond to my point about British Intelligence. The evidence was there. However if you don't believe me, look at the definition of WMD's. This includes nukes, bio weapons, and chemical weapons. Saddam has the biggest stash of CHEMICAL WEAPONS. They did not find nukes but they fund these. 3) My opponent says that we are in a worse situation now. This is partially true, and partially false. Iraq is in a mess, but the REGION isn't. The middle east is actually in no turmoil, besides Iraq. Also, as I have shown before, in Iraq Sectarian violence has decreased 70%. ======================================================================= Voting Issues: 1) Ending a genocide justifies the attack. According he the UN declaration on human rights and genocide. A Security Council member has the right to use force to end a genocide. Don't look to my opponent's point about Darfur etc. thats a non-unique argument. It doesn't matter if we invade Darfur; force was justified becaus we ended a genocide, period. 2) There was evidence of WMD's. British and CIA evidence shows this to be true. nd he also has Cehmical weapons,
The United States had no right to invade Iraq.

Your right, this will be fun =) Ladies and Gentleman my opponent makes a convincing argument, with lots of sources, however it is only the top layer. Rebuttal: 1st Off, my opponent responds to my UN charter point; he says that the force was unauthorized. He says the inspectors had sole authority. I agree this is true, BUT SADDAM VIOLATED THE AGREEMENT BY FORCING THE INSPECTORS OUT. Suspicious? Of course. Iraq violated a UN agreement, therefore a member of the Security Council, namely the US, had the right to use force. 2nd, he didn't attack my point as I provided it. I never mentioned German Intelligence, I mentioned UN intelligence and British Intelligence; you can extend this point. 3rd, he only attacks my third contention by brining up other examples of genocide. My response is simple, because people have hated the Bush Administration for the invasion of Iraq, what will the people think if he wants to invade Darfur? Its people like BeattheDevil that prohibits any action against right violators. I think that these attacks were the most warranted, however I have shown how they are misleading. Nutshell Case -- Generally, Hussein is a proven threat to international security, he is interested in developing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and has shown a willingness to use such weapons on Iraq's neighbors but also against Iraq's Kurdish population. Iraq has to be removed as a threat now before it has the ability to lash out at Israel, Saudia Arabia, Kuwait or US troops stationed in the region. Alternatives to invasion won't solve the problem. UN inspectors were unable to certify that Iraq had disarmed its WMD programs due to Iraqi obstructions. Since the inspectors left Iraq in 1998 Hussein has had considerable time to rebuild his WMD program and to improve his ability to hide critical facilities. If Iraq were to acquire Weapons of Mass Destruction it could threaten regional stability and deter any potential military action against Iraq. Hussein and his gorvenment believe that it was their possession of chemical and biological weapons that deterred the Coalition Forces from invading Iraq during Desert Storm. A WMD capable Iraq would become a regional hegemony. Video: If my reasons didn't convince you, then watch this. I used to be against the Iraq Invasion until I saw this: http://video.google.com...=#
The United States had no right to invade Iraq.

I would contend that the United States legally, morally, and without just cause invade Iraq's territory to reasons other than those proposed to congress and the American people. Whatever the intentions may have truly been, they are not the ones used to justify the war and they not those of the American people. I would also contend that the justifications for the war put forth by the administration were based on false evidence, half-truths and pure lies, and propoganda. Furthermore I intend to prove that the Bush administration did this knowingly, with no regard to the consequences of their actions or in some cases acted in full knowing of the possible consequances but recklessly began a war it could not finish. In this debate, the true intentions are unknown since onlt Bush and Cheney truly know, although most speculate that it was for political and buisness reasons. While these are most likely the true reasons, I do not want to debate them. Instead I wish to debate on the truth (or more specifically the lack thereof) in the original justifications presented by the Bush administration being 1. WMD's that threatened the safety of the U.S. and its allies 2. To bring democracy in Iraq 3. To bring down Saddam, a supposed harborer and supporter of terrorists including Osama Bin Laden. 4. To bring an example of democracy that all middle eastern countries could follow (domino theory in reverse) and create stability throughout the region. All of the reasons above are were based of lies and the Bush administration knew it, which I intend to prove.
Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the United States.

One thing you mentioned in your first argument is that any teacher can tell you that information about a child, but you are also forgetting the fact that teachers are human beings. A teacher will like one kid but have distaste for the other because of a paper he wrote about a topic. What I am basically saying is that people are not perfect, and asking the teacher what they think could place the student behind because of what they accidently said about the student. We also must remember that parents help out a lot these days. The "Star" student of the class may just be the star student because his mother helped him with that writing piece, or that math worksheet. Occasional standardized testing weeds out whether kids are stars because they are getting help from their parents, or because they are actually good students.
Loving my neighbour'

Who is my neighbour? Who is my neighbour I am to love? Any person I meet during the day is my neighbour, and they are all deserved to be loved. God loves each and every person I meet during the day, but, do I love them? The truth if I am really living the gospel depends amongst others if I love my neighbour. Yes, I can be hurt by my neighbour, but the test is, do I love them? Forgiveness and reconciliation are important in my life if I really want to love my neighbour. Loving my neighbour helps me to be closer to God. Being closer to God helps me to live a life more in peace and in unity with the people I meet. The fullness of my life depends a lot if I love my neighbour. So the next time you are with your neighbour, ask God to help you to love that person. George Calleja - Malta I have made a new website on the Internet by the name of 'Peace and unity in our lives' with the address as https://sites.google.com... The aim of this site is to provide inspiration and encouragement for life, and hope that this small contribution of mine will provide an opportunity for people including youths and children around the globe to find courage in their life, by trusting God to be more present in their life. so visit the site as there is always something that helps you to grow in your faith.
Blame and gratitude are illogical concepts

It's really been a pleasure to debate with you, but I'm afraid I must disagree again: while I'm glad that you consider the possibility of hard-wired instincts as an alternative source of inputs, I think that only the second example I brought was a clear cut instinctive response (the finch singing without learning how to). I don't think that we could say that rhesus monkeys are hard-wired to solve puzzles (puzzle is intended here as the physical object, not the abstract concept). And this brings me to the meat of my argument: the monkeys solved the puzzles without external stimulation to guide them, so why did they do that? My answer is because they chose to, guided by their curiosity. They were not forced to do it by the circumstances, unless you think that given a puzzle and a bored monkey there is only one possible solution that will happen all of the time. The same can be said of the human being: "genetics and chance" is a good approximation of what happens during the development of the whole organism, but the more we study of the brain the more we realize it's really complex. Nobody has ever identified a gene that is single handedly responsible for a behavior in humans. Now, as an aside, I think that the human mind is an emergent property of our prefrontal cortex, and that whenever we make a choice we potentiate determinate clusters of synapses and depotentiate others, and that personality is just the sum of this. Note that LTP (long term potentiation) is a phenomenon linked to memory that happens thanks to genetics but, as far as we know, is the same for all clinically sane people. You've been most courteous but I don't think you ever tried to prove what you said, aside for saying it was so. Since you were making a positive assertion, I believe you failed to meet your burden of proof. In other words I posit that claiming that humans are not responsible for their behavior because they have no control on the processing of their brains is not warranted by evidence. However, the debate is over ad we'll see what other people think. I repeat that it was a pleasure, have a good day.
Blame and gratitude are illogical concepts

I congratulate you on your sources as they are quite extensive and technical. If we except what you say to be true and there is an area of behavior that is hard-wired into the brain then we must look at where this hard wiring derives from. Taking out any external factors that effect growth we are left with two driving forces of neural development: genetics and chance. During brain growth the person is not under control of these two factors and is thus not responsible for what template they grow. They are also not responsible for the environment that teaches that brain. So all external and innate motives are out of the control of the operator, making him not responsible for anything he does. This is not to say that if a man is a murderer that he should not be locked up for the common good, quite the opposite, but he is not responsible for his actions.