BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Say something controversial

Interesting concept though I have no clue why you challenged me to this or what the "debate" is supposed to be here, but I'll try to answer your questions if it'll make you happy. I don't take a position on any issue in my profile for one simple reason, the scope is too narrow there. It simply allows you to say you are for or against broad topics with no room for discussion or explanation. I'll just use your examples to explain that position. - Gun rights. I absolutely support the Constitutional right to bear arms. I own guns myself, including a hand gun. On the flip side I strongly oppose felons having a right to own guns and I oppose *some* guns being available to the general public. - Civil unions. That's a state issue I really don't have much feeling about one way or another. I oppose gay marriage, but not necessarily civil unions unless they extend all federal Government funded marriage benefits to said union. - War on terror. Way too broad to be able to give a yes or no answer to. I'd submit anyone who supports terrorism isn't in their right mind so of course I oppose it, and I agree with many of the things done in the name of this "war". Others I don't agree with, however. War on terror is political rhetoric and not a real issue. - Abortion. While I oppose abortion in principal and strongly oppose it as a means of ridding yourself of an unplanned pregnancy, there are circumstances where I don't strictly oppose it. These are all highly complex issues that can't be quantified by a simple "In favor" or "against" answer. At least not by me. Hope that helps explain why I choose not to partake in that exercise. Now let me ask you something. Do you support ones right to choice without having ulterior motives assumed as to why they made said choice?
Say something controversial

Get off the fence post and state your opinions on each individual issue in your profile. I believe you want to employ double talk, and not posting opinions allows you the freedom to go all over the board in your arguments. Let's try a few: Pro gun rights? Pro civil unions? Pro war of terror? Pro abortion? Come on, the water is warm. We won't frighten you with our hard-edged, crass arguments. Are you offended easily? --Mike, Painesville, OH
If you are not saved and going to Heaven, you are lost and sliding down to Hell.

Well, technically speaking, we are all dying. Every day that passes is a day closer to death. Nobody can beat death. However, I would consider myself to be in fairly good shape, especially for my age.If by the fire of hell, which presumably is underneath the earth's crust somewhere, you mean global warming, I am certainly feeling the effects of it. All this being said, god has nothing to do with it.I don't feel like I am lost. I am actually very aware of my current location and if I forgot for some reason, I could just use the GPS on my phone to figure out where I am.Even if I was about to die, who are you to say that I would not be going to heaven if such a place exists? I don't need the fear of the punishment of hell to be a good, moral person. Perhaps the same isn't for you.If you could, please provide a bit of evidence that heaven, hell, and god exist. If you cannot do this, I will not be able to fear them. I cannot possibly fear things that cannot be proven to exist.
If you are not saved and going to Heaven, you are lost and sliding down to Hell.

I accept. Burden of proof is on pro to prove heaven, hell, and god exist before he/she can assert that one can end up there. Not sure what pro means when saying "if you are not saved from death, you are lost to it." No one can be "saved" from death because we are all mortal; and there is no evidence to suggest that a god intervenes in ending or protecting lives.
If you are not saved and going to Heaven, you are lost and sliding down to Hell.

You can think there is neutral ground where you are free from execution of God's Justice, but there is not. If you are not saved from death, you are lost to it. If you save your friend in a firefight, that's only a temporary salvation, They will be lost to death sooner or later if not saved from it by God. You will be lost is not saved by God. Neither Pro nor Con is allowed to make comments in this debate. Lost or saved people are welcome to comment. Ignoring the issue will not save you from Hell.
If you are not saved and going to Heaven, you are lost and sliding down to Hell.

Looks to me like you've sold your soul. Good luck with that. Personally, I don't prefer to sell myself into slavery of an imaginary being in the sky. You have failed to fulfill your burden of proof. Nothing you've said shows that you are sliding into hell if you haven't been saved. You haven't even proven the existence of these post-reality theme parks. Sorry to anyone who made it all the way through this, I'm sure it must have been a tedious and laborious task.
If you are not saved and going to Heaven, you are lost and sliding down to Hell.

I thoroughly do not understand how a man, who probably did not exist, being crucified thousands of years ago could have possibly made a change at an intermediate stage in your life. If your sins are in fact covered and paid for, do you mind stealing a new car for me? Mine is a piece of junk. I do not know why you would want a body like Jesus's: short, frail, and nailed to a cross; does not sound ideal to me.I'm happy with me. I have much more than death, it's called my life. I value this life, the only one we can be certain of, more than anything. It seems you do not do the same. I'll accept god's offer (Allah preferably, I don't know anyone who would turn down 72 virgins) when a god gives me evidence to believe in him/her/it.Until then, I'm content with this life. Please fulfill your burden of proof. I'd hate to see you lose after making so, so many critical, articulate points.
If you are not saved and going to Heaven, you are lost and sliding down to Hell.

The body is mortal. I have a new life in me from God, it's Jesus Christ in me. The old me was the sinner Jesus died for. He took all of my sin on Himself and burried it. Now my sins are covered, paid for by His blood. He rose from the grave and I believed on Him and received Him as my Saviour by asking God in His name to save me frrom Hell. He did, as He promises He will do for all, and now I have eternal life. One day I will have a new body that will be like Jesus' resurrected body, this old mortal body will be changed after God is done with it in this world. If all you have is the same old you, all you have is death and it's eternal. You need to be born again, born of God's Spirt by receiving Jesus Christ as your Saviour. You can have eternal life now and never die. You can be forgiven and life forever enjoying good things in heaven far too good to imagine. Eternal life is God's offer through the blood of His Son to get you out of eternal daeth where you are now, to save you from sliding down to Hell fire.
If you are not saved and going to Heaven, you are lost and sliding down to Hell.

You've discovered the secret to becoming immortal? Sir, you must run an experiment, write up an analysis, submit the paper and accept your Nobel Prize.Can you prove Jesus existed? I certainly can't. No one I've ever spoken to could either.To be honest, even if he was real, I am morally superior to anyone who believes in the idea of vicarious redemption. Thinking that you can put all your sin and wrongdoing onto another person, a dead one I may add, does not seem like a very moral way to live your life. I have a hard time believing that god raped Mary with himself in order to sacrifice himself to himself in order to alleviate the sins of the people he created and commanded.Once again, you've done a better job of proving yourself to be a troll rather than fulfilling your burden of proof.
If you are not saved and going to Heaven, you are lost and sliding down to Hell.

We are not all dying. I have eternal life now. Jesus took my death. i am saved from dying. Death and Hell will be cast into the Lake of Fire, this is the second death. Our bodies are in stage one of death.......that's dying in time. Stage two of death does not count time becaue there will be no end to it. Jesus said "he that lives and beliecves in me shall never die. Do you believe this?" Yes sir, I know it's true, Jesus took my death and he gives me His eternal life. He paid for my sins with His sinless blood, ao my sins are paid for and I am saved from eternal death in the fire of Hell which is the penalty attached to sin if you are not saved from it. You have to receive jesus as your Savior to have eternal life. Otherwise, all you have in your body is death. If you receive Jesus as your Saviour, you will be born again of the Spiri of God and Jesus will give you a new heart from God, and your old dying will be done away with but you will never die. Sadly, most people think it's too good to be true.
School needs to be banished.

Rules: 1. No sources. 2. No bad words. 3. In the first and second round, we will present our debates and in the third round, PRO will ask questions to CON and in the fourth round, CON will ask the question to PRO. 4. Only to 6 questions. Did you ever think school is great? Today we are hear to debate the resolution : School needs to be banished. I am on the CON side because I believe school should not be banished. I have two arguments : First, school makes your attitude better and second, school is a great place to make friends. My first argument is school makes your attitude better. Do you think that we go to school for learning? Yeah, that's a good reason but I have a better reason that that. I say that our attitude gets better. In school, If you do bad thinks such as saying bad words, the teacher could fix this problem. In fact, lots of students fix their attitude at school. My second argument is that we could make lots of friends. In these days, children got busier than the past. This means the time you could play and talk with your friends got shorter. So I think school is the best place you could make friends. In conclusion, I have presented why I have shown why I am the CON side of this debate. I first argued that school makes your attitude better and then I gave my second argument which was we could make lots of friends. I believe school should not be banished and hopefully my arguments have shown why my side is winning this debate.
Gun control is good.

I will happily concede the point on Fort Hood. That being said, I think it's very easy to point at any shooting and say "if there were guns there, this wouldn't have happened!" Here's the problem with that: There ARE guns. This is the US. This country has the free-est access to high quality munitions of ANY industrialized country in the entire world. (Yes even Swtizerland, but we haven't time to get into that.) If access to guns prevented mass shootings, we would have less mass shootings, not more, and we have more, a lot more. We simply have more gun deaths period. Gun Advocates like to say that guns are really preventing many more deaths than they cause, as you do with your 1.5 million statistic above, but I think this is predicated upon proving a negative. You could say they're preventing ten million or 100 million and there's really no way to prove or disprove it. But you know what we can prove? Nearly ten thousand gun deaths (by murder, this number excludes suicides which we can leave for another debate) every year for the past 5 years. Ten thousand lives gone. Fifty thousand families without husbands, wives, or children coming home any more. And we have access to guns. Lots of access. If it is really keeping us safer, than why doesn't it? I realize I've dropped some points in this closing round, you did as well and I don't want to go on for pages so I'm going to leave it here. I wish you luck in the voting! well-debated.
Gun control is good.

I appreciate that you brought up the notion that Fort Hood was heavily armed. This presents me with the opportunity to clear this misconception. No one on a military base has a gun except the police. It took the police more than 10 min to get there allowing the criminal to shoot many innocent people. Also guns are used more than 1.5 million times a year for self defense according according to the Clinton Justice Department. Also take Texas for example. They have very few gun control laws, and they are one of the safest states in the country. Also, Detroit has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, but some of the highest crime rates. Also I think you underestimate the power of the people. People have a lot more power than you think.
Gun control is good.

Also the topic i was arguing was a complete ban of guns just to be clear. You bring up valid arguments in your first response, however you are neglecting to talk about the shootings that have been occurring lately. In those cases citizens having guns would be far preferable. In those cases the criminal just wants to kill. Let's take the Fort Hood shooting for example. ( I am referring to the one that just happened). There the shooter was able to kill and wound several people. If everyone in the building were carrying a gun, then the shooter might have killed or wounded one maybe two people before he got shot himself. Also i strongly disagree with your statement that few criminals are repelled by the thought of guns. Most criminals want easy targets and don't actually want to kill people. That is why they break into houses when they think the family is away. Most criminals are cowards and don't want to put their life on the line. Also in cases of rape, they would definitely think twice about abutting a woman if they knew that she had a revolver in her pocket. You also forget the main reason the constitution says that we have the right to bear arms. In case a tyrant tries to take over the government and take away our rights. Right now it seems far-fetched, but we can't let them take away our guns now while everything is fine and dandy because if that situation does arise we will need our guns, and then we will just be saying oops shouldn't have done away with guns. Another point I'd like to mention is that guns protect us more than most people know. During WWII Hitler stated that he didn't dare invade the US knowing that there were guns at every door. In response to your argument that other countries don't need guns I would like to point out Afghanistan . There the Taliban force themselves into the peoples homes to use as cover. This puts the family at risk. If everyone there had guns, they would be in a better position to refuse the Taliban access to their homes.
Gun control is good.

My thanks to my opponent for initiating this debate. One comment pointed out that the term "Gun Control" is not defined in the opening rounds of the debate. As such, I am going to take a controversial approach and argue two different definitions. My opponent can engage which he wishes, and I will drop one if he doesn't address it. Definition 1: Some limitation on access to/ownership of firearms. Under these terms, law-abiding citizens would still have access to guns, therefore law-abiding citizens WOULD have guns, yet law enforcement would have at least SOME tools to restrict the general flow of guns into the hands of the public, some of whom, inevitably would be criminals as pro points out. Definition 2: Complete illegality of firearms. This seems to be the definition my opponent is interested in arguing. To quote The Onion's response to the most recent mass shooting, "This couldn't have been prevented, says only nation where this regularly happens!" To ruin the joke by explaining it, many countries ban firearms and do not see increased rates of gun violence. In fact, in virtually all nations where guns are banned, the overall death toll from firearms every year is miniscule compared rates of gun death in the United States. Despite "gun freedom" advocates' frequent statement that guns don't kill people, people kill people, guns make killing much easier and seem to factor in a huge number of killings when they are available over other alternatives. Let's take my opponent at his hypothetical best, though. Let us assume that *some* number of criminals are repelled by the use of firearms. I would argue that this number is very small over all: Criminals typically have the drop on who they wish to rob or kill and tend to put themselves in a better position to avoid return fire, and the presence of a gun may make a criminal who only wants money feel pressured to kill to protect himself where he otherwise might not have. In essence, the presence of two guns at a robbery raises the chance that SOMEONE is going to die, and the death is still more likely to be in favor of the criminal. It comes down to an interesting ethical question: Is it better to lose 100 lives to gun violence if 10 of those lives lost happen to be the lives of criminals who "deserve it" OR is it better to simply have 10 lives lost to guns overall? I would argue the latter is far more favorable, both from a utilitarian perspective and a moral one. Less death is better without seriously mitigating circumstances, and in this example, the mitigating circumstance is a false sense of safety given by possession of a firearm.
Gun control is good.

Gun control is not good. First off guns don't kill people. People kill people. Second off if we outlaw guns law abiding citizens won't have guns, but criminals would because if they break the law to kill people they will break the law to get guns. The problem here is obvious but I will spell it out anyways. The criminals will then attack unarmed people, but if guns are allowed the criminal will be attacking an armed person who can blow his brains out.
Clintons loath the military,they don't care much about Trump supporters either.

TITLE OF NEW TOPIC ON DEBATE.org...Clintons loath the military, they don't care much about Trump supporters either. SEPTEMBER11Th.2016 Hillary Clinton pegs half of Donald Trump's supporters as a 'basket of deplorables'http://www.businessinsider.com... September 10, 2016 Hillary and Bill Clinton when they previously occupied the office of the presidency let it be known that they had a loathing for the military and that loathing for the military probably hasn't changed but it turns out that now that Hillary is running for president that she also has just as low a regard for any citizen who would happen to be for Donald Trump and she said so recently. "Hillary Clinton pegs half of Donald Trump's supporters as a 'basket of deplorables..."September 10, 2016 http://www.businessinsider.com... Hillary Clinton spoke from her heart when she recently said...,"Trump's supporters....are.... a 'basket of deplorables' "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic" you name it." September 10, 2016... http://www.businessinsider.com... lookingattheissues..... You would think that any person who wanted to be president of this country would respect all of the countries citizens, even those who might happened to think that she wasn't the right person for the position of president. Is there any doubt in anyones mind that if Hillary Clinton were to be honored and elected to the office of the presidency that she wouldn't claim that she represented all of the citizens not just those who voted for her. But if she holds such low opinion of the caliber of these citizens who back Donald Trump that she would feel if she became president that they were unworthy of having their opinions given a fair hearing by her and she would totally disregarded them. Hilllary has touted that she wanted to unite and represent all of the people if she were to be elected president but her words she spoke recently about Donald Trump supporters tells a different story. Hillary Clinton obviously hasn't tolerance for those who might hold different opinions than hers. Is Hillary the kind of person to be elected president when she holds so many prejudices and displays intolerance for those who might disagree with her, I and many Donald trump susporters others don't believe so.
Clintons loath the military,they don't care much about Trump supporters either.

Hillary Clinton didn't necessarily loathe the military but more so Bill Clinton. There have been more accounts of Bill loathing the military rather than Hillary and who's to say she really does. Also she does care about trump supporters she just stating the fact that most are racist islamophobic. Because that's what Trump stands for and has campaigned throughout his political drive for presidency. Also Trump supporters also don't care about Hillary they are obviously taking the side of her opposition so therefore why would she praise them in any way. Im sure if Trumps views were different she wouldn't have to point out the obvious and call people out for what they are.
Clintons loath the military,they don't care much about Trump supporters either.

Hillary and Bill Clinton when they previously occupied the office of the presidency let it be known that they had a loathing for the military and that loathing for the military probably hasn't changed but it turns out that now that Hillary is running for president that she also has just as low a regard for any citizen who would happen to be for Donald Trump and she said so recently. "Hillary Clinton pegs half of Donald Trump's supporters as a 'basket of deplorables..."September 10, 2016 http://www.businessinsider.com... Hillary Clinton spoke from her heart when she recently said...,"Trump's supporters....are.... a 'basket of deplorables' "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic" you name it." September 10, 2016... http://www.businessinsider.com... lookingattheissues..... You would think that any person who wanted to be president of this country would respect all of the countries citizens, even those who might happened to think that she wasn't the right person for the position of president. Is there any doubt in any ones mind that if Hillary Clinton were to be honored and elected to the office of the presidency that she wouldn't claim if asked, that she represented all of the citizens not just those who voted for her. But if she holds such low opinion of the caliber of these citizens who back Donald Trump that she would feel if she became president that they were worthy of having their opinions given a fair hearing by her and not just totally disregarded. Hillary has touted that she wanted to unite and represent all of the people if she were to be elected president but her words she spoke recently about Donald Trump supporters tells a different story. Hillary Clinton obviously hasn't tolerance for those who might hold different opinions than hers. Is Hillary the kind of person to be elected president when she holds so many prejudices and displays so much intolerance for those who might disagree with her.
rap battle

Its time to go to school, go n grab that lunch money, My rhymes dont exist to fools who havent had to run from me, A bully on the playground, ill be terrorizing kids, So you wanna sue for what i say now, while u plagiarize my shyt. Hate to break it to ya kid, im beyond your comprehension, Look up what super natural means, you will long to seek perfection. Honestly professing, my beliefs taught em lesson, God is wisdom but she didnt listen tho the prophecies been written.. Behold, the time is coming, the man of the hour, Pro must crazy to think she can stand against my power. Laughin out loud at her, this class is almost over, If u aint got skills, please stick to rapping in the shower... my two cents, choose the best, whats it cost to you? Vote for me, totally, give props when props is due So the last bar , i save, for finishing this rhyne... Until next time! Suckaz i aint hard to find.