BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is rational to believe in a god

A very large number of theists, be they Jewish, Christian or Muslim, accept that there is no measurable evidence for God. The only exception to this that I know of is personal revelation. But, different people's personal revelations disagree with each other, and they can't all be right! This ought to be sufficient reason to dismiss personal revelation... it is not reliable enough to be trustworthy. Believing is possible without good reason, it's just tough... we see this struggle play out in Theists the World over. Even the late Mother Teresa wrote frequently to her superiors complaining that God did not answer her prayers and talk to her directly or give her any evidence that he was there. Her superiors wrote back telling her how lucky she was to suffer in this way, since her suffering allowed her to share some of Jesus' divine suffering. http://www.patheos.com... My contention is simple: to believe takes faith and, as such, comes not from reason.
Resolved: The government should ban smoking in public places

In this debate, I will be defending two arguments in support of the proposition that the government ought to ban smoking in public places: Firstly, I will attempt to show the objective harms of smoking and then show how a ban on smoking in public places can help to improve public health and the environment. 1. Smoking is objectively harmfulThis is a relatively uncontroversial proposition in regards to the medical and scientific community. Decades of research has shown the harms of smoking to the individual smoker. Indeed, according to the Center for Disease Control, cigarette smoking causes more than 480,000 deaths earch year and more people die of smoking-related deaths than HIV, illegal drug use, alcohol use, vehicle accidents, and fire-arm related incidents combined (1). The smoker causes more harm than just individual damage. Secondhand smoke kills around 3,000 adults each year. According to the Surgeon General, "living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20% to 30%. " (2) According to HHS, laws banning smoking in public places help improve worker and customer health. (2) In addition to the public health crisis, smoking also is harmful to the environment. According to a report in Tobacco Control, air pollution by cigarettes are 10 times greater than that from cars and fossil fuels (3). 2. Smoking bans are effective means in reducing smokingResearch has shown that smoking bans in public areas are one of the most effective means of reducing smoking and improving public health. For example, when New York passed a comprehensive law to prohibit smoking in indoor areas of workplaces, restaurants, and bars, they found that there was an 8% reduction in hospital admissions and also found a 56 million dollar savings in hospital costs. (4)The BBC reports (5), "Results show benefits for health, changes in attitudes and behaviour and no clear adverse impact on the hospitality industry. "Smoking bans are one of the most effective policies in reducing smoking. ConclusionIn summary, smoking is objectively harmful both to the smoker and to the people and environment around them. The government is justified in banning smoking in public places. The right to have a healthy, clean, and safe environment trumps the right for the smoker to smoke. _______1. (. https://www.cdc.gov...) 2. (. http://betobaccofree.hhs.gov...) 3. (. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...) 4. (. http://www.cdc.gov...) 5. (. http://www.bbc.com...)
Resolved: The government should ban smoking in public places

Resolved: That the government should ban smoking in public places. Rounds: R1. AcceptanceR2. Opening argumentsR3. RebuttalsR4. Defense/Closing Rules 1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate9. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss The time limit between replies is 72 hours and the character limit is 10,000. If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. If one side explicitly concedes or violates any of these terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other. By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.Thanks to whoever accepts this debate.
This House Would Ban Animal Testing

To conclude this debate, I would like to state that although animal testing has helped us immensely in the past, just like everything else in life, things have to improve. In the past, we used horse and carts as one of our primary methods of transportation. Nowadays, we have the car. We don't need animal tests anymore and it has come to a time to improve. Thank you for reading. Vote Pro. Sources used throughout debate: http://www.peta.org... https://helix.northwestern.edu... http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://mpkb.org... http://wyss.harvard.edu...
This House Would Ban Animal Testing

Thank you for your good but somewhat 'short' point. In this round, I would actually like to start my argument by looking at the situation from your point of view. What you are implying is that animals shouldn't have rights and are "just animals" (in other words, you are totally denying their existing rights). Fair enough. But in that case, why should we test substances on animals and waste our money on their deaths and the deaths of the 'high and mighty humans' when 92% of animal tests fail anyway? Then that wouldn't really be "improving the lives of humans" like you so emphasised in your point. Now back to my perspective. Animals are not "just animals" and have rights by law. Yes, we kill animals for food but do we really need to kill or risk the lives lives of these animals for testing when it is clearly UNNECESSARY when we have so much more accurate and modern alternatives such as the 'In Vitro testing' that I mentioned earlier? In the previous round, I described only a few of the many modern alternatives that have been proven to be much more effective than animal testing, and I believe that they are the things that will not only protect animals but also "improve the lives of humans". Thank you and I beg you to oppose.
Basketball players should have to be a year removed from high school to play in the NBA.

It seems like you are trying to win the debate by simply throwing numbers around without any meaning. It doesn't matter what age they retire at: if they stay one year in college or don't go at all then they will be "without a job or degree" either way. This rule should not be put in place with the hope of benefiting colleges. The NCAA is a billion dollar industry that benefits solely off of amateur athletes who aren't allowed to make money off of their own name. The NCAA uses these kids for one year to make money, but at the same time prevents the athletes from making money. If this rule wasn't in place, then so many student-athletes would not have to endure the hypocrisy that is the NCAA.
Basketball players should have to be a year removed from high school to play in the NBA.

I only forfeited the previous round because I felt bad for you. While most NBA prospects do not get a college degree, it still helps them by going for the one year. The average career length of an NBA player is 4.87 years, meaning if they leave after one or two years they will be out of the league by the time they are around 25 (The average age of a player when he retires is 28). This means now they are without a job or a degree. If they skip college all together, they will be 24. They could go try to take classes at a college, but they would not get into a good school. If they already started taking classes, then the process would be easier to transition back. Another reason why the rule is a good thing is that it benefits the college. If a college has a superstar basketball player on their team, more fans will go to the games. If more fans go, then the more money the college will make. Also, the students who went to the same college as this star player will want to pay attention to him as he goes to the pros, which will give the NBA more of a fan base.
Basketball players should have to be a year removed from high school to play in the NBA.

I'm assuming that you forfeited the previous round because there was simply no response to my flawless reasoning, so I will present a new point. It does make sense to get a college degree before going pro when you could get the education for free. However, this rule does not force the athletes to graduate before going pro. The new "one and done" concept has become the norm for legitamate NBA prospects. They go to college for one year in order to follow the rule, and then go right to the pros. Forcing them to go for one year will not change any of the athlete's minds to stay for four and get a degree.
Basketball players should have to be a year removed from high school to play in the NBA.

To say that none of them are mature enough mentally or physically is simply incorrect. Before this rule existed, it was fairly common for athletes to enter the professionals immediately after high school and succeed. For example, Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, and Kevin Garnett entered the draft after their senior year of high school and all had success. All three were capable of playing in the league at such a young age without a major decrease in their basketball production and an inability to make mature decisions. They have agents that exist solely to manage their money in order to make sure it is not wasted shortly after signing the multi-million dollar contracts. Also, if they want to waste their money, it is their choice to do so. The NBA should not have the power to decide the precise moment when a young man is mature enough to handle his own money, it should be up to the player. In addition, the one year spent in college will not make that much of a difference in the athlete's decision making skills. In fact, it may only prolong the inevitable in that their egos will expand after a year of being treated as a king on a college campus before entering the real world a year later. Basically, there is no decision that an 18 year old will not be able to pass up that a 19 year old could.
Basketball players should have to be a year removed from high school to play in the NBA.

Basketball players should have to be a year removed from high school to play in the NBA. These are 17 and 18 year old kids, and none are mature enough to make the jump, both mentally and physically. A year in college will act as a bridge that will allow the athletes to start to grow up and mature. Going from high school to then being a superstar and signing a multi-million dollar contract will lead to many opportunities for bad choices, which an 18 year old will not be able to pass up.
Basketball players should have to be a year removed from high school to play in the NBA.

No, this rule is not looking out for what is best for the players. Forcing the player to go to college for one year does not benefit them. You are making a judgment call on the maturity level of all 18 year olds. In addition, this rule does not even force them to go to college. Brandon Jennings went to Europe to play basketball for a year before coming to the NBA. Forcing them to go through the formality of one year of college only helps the NCAA and NBA. Players should be allowed to go pro directly out of high school.
Basketball players should have to be a year removed from high school to play in the NBA.

Benefiting college basketball and then benefiting the NBA is important, also. The more money the NBA makes, the more the players will be paid. The rule is just looking out for what's best for the athlete. Forcing the athlete to go to college is what's best for the athlete, so why not make it a rule? That way they will be guaranteed at least an attempt at becoming mature and allowing them to develop. An 18 year old does not know whats best for them self, so he should be forced to do what is, which is going to college.
Basketball players should have to be a year removed from high school to play in the NBA.

True, but it's not about what is best for the NBA. It's not about what's best for the NCAA. It's really not even about what is best for the player. It's about what's fair for the athletes. If the player wants to skip college, it should be THEIR choice. If the player wants to go all four years and get a degree, it should be THEIR choice. While it clearly makes sense to go to college, each player should still have the right to choose their career path. If they want the professional salary right away, they should be able to get it. If the NBA teams don't want to risk their draft picks and money on a high school player, then they shouldn't draft him!
Basketball players should have to be a year removed from high school to play in the NBA.

The NCAA is a necessity for the NBA to continue to flourish though. College basketball is needed for coaches to fully evaluate player and allow players to mature. If a player goes straight to the NBA, coaches wouldn't have seen the prospect play against real competition. Playing in high school is a completely different world from college basketball. It is a greater risk for professional teams to draft a player out of high school. That leaves a greater chance they will waste a draft pick on someone so young, and have them get caught in all the distractions and not develop as well as if they spent a year in college.
The Dark Knight is not oscar-worthy.

It's a great film, and if reduced down to nothing but Ledger's joker performance, then it would be among the greatest films in history. But that's not the case and, as a whole, The Dark Knight is not oscar-worthy. I'll start with its most crucial flaw, but will be happy to elaborate on other flaws when and if anyone accepts my debate challenge. Here it is... Harvey Dent's crossover to 2-face. The hero-turned-villain concept is a magnificent tool to use...but only if it's used ever so craftily. If not done so, it becomes a cliche. Let's use Darth Vader as a reference point. Anakin is born a slave and remains a slave throughout most his childhood. Then he decides to leave his home to study the force and become a Jedi, pledging to return and free his mother. His mother is then murdered, and we begin to see his anger, hatred, emptiness, despair surfacing. But only surfacing. If Anakin had turned to the dark side five minutes after his mother's death, then half of Episode 2 and all of 3 would become pointless. Instead, George Lucas reveals another 5 or 10 years of the villain's life, creating more suspense, more drama, more build-up, more plot, more emotion. Anakin's crossover is ever so gradual. It takes three portions/films of the saga to finally reveal, at long last, this hero's downfall. Thus, Anakin Skywalker aka Darth Vader has become a classic, legendary villain. But district attorney Harvey Dent's crossover/downfall? Umm...sloppy, rushed, quick, mediocre, and reckless at best. Rachael Dawes, his only love, his girlfriend, his bride-to-be, his whole life...is murdered. So, of course, it's only natural that Harvey is a little upset, a little angry, a little sad, a little depressed, and now a little insane. But all of the sudden? In five seconds? The next day? Gotham's white knight, its savior, its true hero, is, in the course of 15 seconds of footage, now a sadistic murderer? Oh and the brains behind your true love's murder, the ONE most responsible person for Rachael's death, gently places a handgun in your palm, offering you the chance to blow his head off...and you don't take it? I don't understand. Here's a man who has just listened to the one person on earth he loves the most explode on the telephone, and it's turned him inside-out with hatred and anger and insanity...yet this same person allows the killer responsible to live. It's choppy and sloppy, quick and stupid. Perhaps if we had seen just a tiny level of the inner villain surfacing within Dent, before he lost his mind, then ok. But there was no sign whatsoever that Dent had anything close to a moral flaw...until he went insane. Hero-turned-villain, or even villain-turned-hero...must be a gradual process. If it's rushed in any way, then it collapses under its own weight. Thus, TDK is not worthy of an Academy Award.
why not legalise polygamy

My opponent has not provided a URL/ corrct citing. How do we know this is refutable? Anyways-i have provided my source at :http://www.conservapedia.com...... this link is still working.i chacked it now. Let's do a little scenario: Pretend you are a girl (I don't know if you are one, though I'm assuming you aren't) You have just found the love of your life. You marry and live a happy life. Then one day, your husband comes home and announces he is getting married again. Your heart is shattered. You get depressed.first of all, lets see wheather a girl really dislike polygamy or not ? if all women really dislike it, then the practise of polygamy was no more. but in ancient times,the entire world was polygamous including europe. in modern time, polygamy prevails some part of the world and the entire muslim world.muslim living in europe can't practice it because of legal prohibition. otherwise they would do it. muslims in africa and arabia practice it widely. if polygamy is so bad for women, then father of the bride will never give her daughter to a polygamous man. but it is not bad for the following reasons:1] if a first wife is infertile, then her husbend will have a kid from second wife.this is the chief reason.2] if a man has sexual desire and his first wife cannot fullfill it, then second wife can.3] in modern day busy life context, a second wife will give company to the first wife in absense of husbend.4] there is no visible physical and mental harm in polygamy.then why the heart of a western woman would break ? because she was taught that loving another woman = not loving herself, which is an invalid equation, of course.
why not legalise polygamy

My opponent has not provided a URL/ corrct citing. How do we know this is refutable? Anyways- Let's do a little scenario: Pretend you are a girl (I don't know if you are one, though I'm assuming you aren't) You have just found the love of your life. You marry and live a happy life. Then one day, your husband comes home and announces he is getting married again. Your heart is shattered. You get depressed. That is why we should not legalize polygamy. Thank you.
why not legalise polygamy

polygamy was widespread in europe in ancient times. the early hibrew kings are polygamous. even king solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. lets see an evidence:"Polygamy, in ancient times, was widespread, but has become less common over time. The most common form of polygamy is polygyny. Polygynous marriages are found in the Old Testament, especially among the early Hebrew kings. The first recorded polygamist was Lamech (Genesis 4:19), in the seventh generation from Adam. The book of Deuteronomy gives an inheritance rule for polygynous families.[2] The culmination was Solomon with 700 wives and 300 concubines; however, the fact that they were from the pagan nations led him down the path of corruption.[3] There was also a practice of giving a maid servant to a husband to sire children in the period of the patriarchs; Scripture refers to such a maid servant variously as a wife[4] and as a concubine[5]. God, speaking through the prophet Nathan, addressed David's polygamy without expressing disapproval: And Nathan said to David, Thou [art] the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if [that had been] too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. 2Samuel 12:7-8 (KJV)."so we can see that old testament support polygamy. it is also supported by some jewish sects."Sephardi Jews continued to practice it in Islamic lands for some time after that. Yemeni and Ethiopian Jews practice it to this day."so, we can see from these evidences that polygamy is practised by a large number of people in the world. they do not get hurt by its practice. if they do, then polygamy will probably be eliminated. then why my opponent say it is immoral ?source:http://www.conservapedia.com...
why not legalise polygamy

Back in the ancient days, polygamy was fine because it was a patriachal society. Now, we have women who are working as CEO's and Lawyers and famous authors. In fact, we even have stay at home dads. 1- if a first wife is infertile, then her husbend will have a kid from second wife. this is the chief reason. ---If a wife is infertile, there are adoption agencies. 2-if a man has sexual desire and his first wife cannot fullfill it, then second wife can --If a man is having sexual relations with another woman, than that man is not loyal. Relationships are based on loyalty. 3- in modern day busy life context, a second wife will give company to the first wife in absense of husbend --thats what modern day techology is for. We have cellphones, Skype, etc. 4-there is no visible physical and mental harm in polygamy --there is emotional harm. True, there is no physical, but mentally ties in with emotionally. As I have shown today, polygamy SHOULD NOT be legalized. It is unjust and barbaric. Thank you and vote Aff
Americans deserve freedom to choose religion, food, drink and smoke

Now you are off on another subject. The title is Americans deserve freedom to choose religion, food, drink and smoke. What part of that do you not comprehend??? I never said it was healthy and as I said in the first round I don't think others should be responsible for our poor health choices. If I want to kill myself with poor choices that is my right. My eating BBQ ribs everyday does not effect the rest of the world! Bill Clinton had two stents inserted into one of his coronary arteries in February of 2010 because he loves ribs and that was on taxpayer dollars. Who complained about that? GOD gave us freedom of choice. Is the American government above GOD? How do they have the right to decide things for us???
Americans deserve freedom to choose religion, food, drink and smoke

with in 30 years, 3083 men (53.4%) died. Compared with never smokers who did not drink, men who both smoked and drank 15+ units/week had the highest all-cause mortality (relative rate = 2.71 (95% confidence interval 2.31-3.19)). Relative rates for CHD mortality were high for current smokers, with a possible protective effect of some alcohol consumption in never smokers. Stroke mortality increased with both smoking and alcohol consumption. Smoking affected respiratory mortality with little effect of alcohol. Adjusting for a wide range of confounders attenuated the relative rates but the effects of alcohol and smoking still remained. Premature mortality was particularly high in smokers who drank 15 or more units, with a quarter of the men not surviving to age 65. 30% of men with manual occupations both smoked and drank 15+ units/week compared with only 13% with non-manual ones. Smoking and drinking 15+ units/week was the riskiest behaviour for all causes of death.