BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Eucharist Becomes the "Real Presence" the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ

Resolution The Eucharist Becomes the "Real Presence" the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ as the Catholic church teaches.Clarification Please note that I do not believe in Catholicism or Christianity. I do, however, believe that the Catholic's interpretation is correct according to the New Testament. This debate pre-assumes that Christianity in some form is correct.We will be debating the doctrine of transubstantiation in which I am pro. Structure Acceptance Opening arguments Rebuttals Rebuttals Closing Good luck:-)
The land battle at thermopoly was more important than the sea battle in the Artemisium straight

Actually, the land battle at the Thermopoly wasn't more important because the Artemisium Strait had more events happening that it was called a series of events but a land battle at the thermopoly didn't have much going on. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org... The sea battle also had Thermistocles. http://www.twcenter.net...
Disabled People Should Pay More Taxes

I personally have autism and I am not willing to pay $100k extra in taxes for being mentally disabled.Since you are the prosecution, prove to me that God punishes people with disabilities for sins that they committed. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. It states that in the constitution, 5th amendment (https://www.whitehouse.gov...).While some disabled people use wheelchairs and chruches I would like to point out some basic facts:1: Not all disabled people use wheelchairs or chrutches; I know I don't. https://www.census.gov... that nearly 1/5 people have disabilities. They include a wide veriety of disabilities; as an exaple someone with glasses would have a disability since they can't see as well.2: Even the small percentage of disabled people who actually have a history of using crutches don't cost society $100k a year. While disabled people who need wheelchairs or chrutches should be pay for them without the government's help, taxing them $100k a year for their disabled status is extremely discriminitory against the disabled people.You won't even have to build a time machine. I have a time machine at my house. It's called a clock. However, nuking India also would not be an ethical thing to do. Indians have rights. Pro's only reason why he hates Indians so much is because they smell. I don't know if Indians tend to be more smelly then non indians, but their smelliness does not justify nuking the subcontenent for 3 reasons:1: Nuking innocent people to avoid an extremely nominal smell is extremely immoral and infringes on human rights2: India is far away from the west. Even if Indians smelled very bad, their stentch wouldn't be noticed from America and Europe by the human nose.3: It turns out that the nucluear fallout may smell much worse then some Indians since nucluear material smells bad.I await pro's response, if he even responds.
Disabled People Should Pay More Taxes

I believe that physically and mentally disabled people need to pay more taxes to atone for their disability. Disabilities are punishment from God for one's sins. Those sins could include, but are not limited to, rape, murder, theft, and bullying. Sometimes, the sinner/criminal's kids receive a disability. That is why disabled people need to pay $100,000 USD, or the equivalent of their currency, every year they live. Also, disabled people use stuff like wheelchairs and crutches, which really waste material and production costs. With the same amount of material and money, we could build a time machine so we can go back in time and nuke India so they won't stink up the world. Indians today are indeed a problem: https://www.reddit.com......
Disabled People Should Pay More Taxes

https://www.reddit.com... Disabled people are useless. They also cause trouble. Many serial killers and rapists are mentally insane. Special needs school students often cause immense trouble and destruction. Look: https://www.cdc.gov... https://i.ytimg.com... https://i.ytimg.com... People w/cerebral palsy are so ugly, that they scare other people to death. That is why a tax of $100K or so would be a good way to apologize to the people they freak out due to their disability. Once again, a disability is a punishment for your own sin or the sins of your parents. Horatio Nelson voluntarily joined the British military, and at the Battle of Santa Cruz de Tenerife, he lost most of his right arm. Why? Because he tried to destroy Spain. That is racism, as an Englishman wanted to kill, or at least demoralize and politically/economically weaken Spain: I repeat, this is racism! https://en.wikipedia.org...(1797)#British_plans https://en.wikipedia.org... And finally, diabetes is also a disability. People with diabetes eat too much food because they are fat. Please visit the website (https://www.diabetes.co.uk...). As you can see, diabetes makes you need to urinate more often and it gives you blurred vision. They waste toilet paper, water that is used in the toilets, and makes things worse for the environment. As for blurred vision, they waste glasses, which cost lots of resources and money to manufacture. If someone has type 2 diabetes, it means that they drink too much and/or eat too much junk foods. In that case, they should definitely atone for the crimes their fellow alcoholics commit. Because they eat too much junk food, they have little or no self control, and they probably commit other crimes such as bullying or murder. For further reading, I would like to say that what50 and masterful are the same person, and reggee is mentally retarded, as shown in his idiotic and nonsense debates, saturated with grammar errors. http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... Go ahead and read their debates.
Disabled People Should Pay More Taxes

"Special needs people never do anything productive or useful for society. All they can do is cause trouble and make things difficult on other people." There is a significent possiility that you made this comment from an Apple computer or a Dell/Microsoft computer, both of which are managed by autistic people (Steve Jobs and Bill Gates respectively) http://kerrymagro.com....Your Alarmy site proves nothing. They are a picture site.Not all autistic people are beggars. In fact some of them are doing pretty well like Nicholas Tesla.As for the population that are beggars, they take money from people willing to give it to them. They don't steal since it is mutually aggreed between the financial donor and the begger. Otherwise, you would be a theif if you have recived a present from someone as a birthday. You would be taking that thing from someone. But this is okay, sine it is mutually consensual between all involved parties.So they aren't stealing. The only thing you pointed out that they might be taking from the government is the wheelchair costs, which disabled people should pay for on their own."they need to pay at least $700 dollars every time they use their wheelchair." This is BULL. That just like me saying it costs you $200,000 to sleep one night in a house and sleeping in that house for a year would cost you $73,000,000. If that were true, then most people would be in debt by tens of millions of dollars. The disabled person buys the wheelchair once and then that wheelchair is perminently theirs.
Disabled People Should Pay More Taxes

Special needs people never do anything productive or useful for society. All they can do is cause trouble and make things difficult on other people. Also, disabled people often are beggars. https://www.alamy.com...... Since they basically take money from other people, it's logical to ask them to give more money. A thief must pay back 7 times: Proverbs 6:30-31 says " Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; but if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house." See, the average beggar in the United States makes around 60 bucks a day. That's about $20,000 to $25,000 each year. And if we only ask them to pay $100,000 a year, that's already very merciful. 100,000/20,000 is less than 7. http://www.mypersonalfinancejourney.com...... The average wheelchair costs $100 to $800, depending on size and quality. Many people with cerebral palsy, severe physical disabilities, etc. need wheelchairs. Since they basically waste materials when they are better off dead, they need to pay at least $700 dollars every time they use their wheelchair. If we count using the wheelchair for one day as one "use", then each year they owe the gov't more than $250K dollars. And that doesn't even consider economic inflation and taxes. https://www.karmanhealthcare.com......
The Us should raise th minimum wage to 15 dollars per hour.

I apologize for the forfeit and wil ltry to make it up this round. My arguments are... As shown here http://www.usnews.com... many people need to have low paying jobs to start off with as businesses eliminate jobs to accomodate for the extra spending. Minimum wage hikes will eliminate jobs. https://www.epionline.org... A minimum wage hike would reduce the amount of jobs and pro’s claim of the 1968 minimum wage is invalid since this study shows that accounting for inflation the minimum wage would’ve been $4. Also, do teenagers or really anyone really need 30,000 dollars a year for flipping burgers? http://www.investopedia.com... http://thesovereigninvestor.com... In conclusion a minimum wage increase would lower the amount of jobs in America. It would make businesses lay off jobs and it would help some, but hurt many living on the current minimum wage and really hurt many living below it trying to work their way up. A minimum wage hike would also only encourage businesses to move work overseas for more cheap labor. Pro’s first paragraph suggests a $15 dollar minimum wage in third world countries though this debate is about the USA and that is completely outside the Us’ jurisdiction, those countries have their own governments. I believe I have also adequeately refuted pros points with my arguments partly since the unemployment increase would increase food stamps and welfare need because of the layed off jobs.
The Us should raise th minimum wage to 15 dollars per hour.

Mc9 has sadly forfeited but never the less I will argue, Worker Rights: if you a working in a society you do not deserve to live in poverty nor should you be homeless on the streets and working. Something is wrong if you have people working that don't have enough money to live off of. Do you really have to be in the middle class or the upper class to have a fair standard of living? Let me paint a picture for you: Imagine A walmart worker they usally make around 9$ an hour that is still not enough to live off of. In order to have a fair living wage every worker should be paid at a minimum 15 dollars an hour. Don't you think that it is saddening that people who are working and who are working hard live in poverty? 28% of workers earn Poverty level wages, (http://stateofworkingamerica.org......) This is not a third world country, people who are working deserve a living wage (15 Dollars an hour) Does minimum wage increases hurt jobs? No they don't at all actually I am going to display a graph that shows 13 states that have increased the minimum wage actually saw jobs increase! (http://feelthebern.org......) Also economists dismiss the idea that it decreases jobs, A key finding by an report on wether it decreases jobs found that a minimum wage hike does not decrease jobs:http://www.integrityflorida.org......; Would their be in increase of a use of governmental assistance? No actually since a 15 dollar minimum wage lifts people out of poverty their will be less of a need for food stamps and welfare. According to the Economic Policy Insitute Rasing the minimum wage by just a few dollars would cause 1.7 million americans to no longer relay on public assisstance. And note this is only raising the minimum wage by a few dollars! Not 15 in this study imagine how many people won't need public assistance if we raised the minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour! What would be the price increase? According to a video by Slate magazine there would only be a 1 cent increase on a box of mac and cheese if we raised the minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour! You can watch the video here if you don't believe me:https://www.youtube.com...... Was the minimum wage ever higher than it was today? Actually yes it has! In 1968 adjusted for Inflation the minimum wage was $8.54 an hour! Link:http://www.pewresearch.org......; Also in 1968 the unemployment rate was only at 3.6 Percent! And in 1969 it was even lower at 3.5 percent unemployment lower than it is today. Link:http://data.bls.gov......
The United States, Britain, France, and Italy caused WW2, not Germany

The Great Depression was not only in America, it effected the whole world after WW1. The United States also did not even sign the Treaty, the only reason they entered the war was because Britain egged them on to and Germany kept sinking merchant ships with americans aboard them. So basically, Germany was the cause of WW1, where they went to far and France and Britain wanted to punish them with the treaty. The land that the Germans were "forced" to give up was land that they took and their military was decreased because they were condoning militarism. So the treaty did hurt the Germans, but it was because of what they did in WW1 where they deserved it, and instead of accepting defeat and ethically trying to bring themselves back to normal, they elected Hitler as president and he tried to take over the world, thus starting World War 2.
The United States, Britain, France, and Italy caused WW2, not Germany

I do agree with you on a few points. I agree that both Japanese and Italian aggression were also causes to WW2 and I also agree that Germany started the war. I don't think that the Great Depression, at least if you are referring to the one in America, was really a cause of the war but more a circumstance. I would say that the failure of the League of Nations and German Aggression can be directly related to the Treaty of Versailles. I know and realize that Hitler and the Nazi Party were very imperialistic and aggressive during their reign and started their campaign leading to the second world war. What I am saying is that Hitler and the Nazi Party were only able to come to power by preying on the fear of the German people after the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty, which was drafted by the United States, Britain, France, and Italy, made it possible for the Nazi Party to take power and commit the atrocities that they did. The League of Nations partly failed due to the lack of involvement by the United States. Congress didn't want to be overly involved in European affairs but President Wilson was still involved in the creation of the Treaty of Versailles, that is why the United States is part of the cause. Italian and Japanese aggression did play a part in causing WW2 and Germany did actually start the war, however the major causes can be traced back to the United States, Britain, France, and Italy creating the Treaty of Versailles. The creation of that treaty allowed for the Nazi Party to rise in Germany, leading to German aggression.
The United States, Britain, France, and Italy caused WW2, not Germany

You make very good points sir, but I would like to counter your argument. The 6 long term causes of WW2 were, Japanese aggression, Italian aggression, German aggression, The Great Depression, Treaty of Versailles, and failure of the League of Nations. The 3 aggressions were because those 3 nations were building up their military. Hitler started the Nazi party and silently started invading countries until he tried to invade Poland with his Blitzkrieg tactic and that is when the war officially started. Germany also signed a non-aggression pact with Russia, stating that the Germans would not invade or harm the Russians as long as they do not get involved in the war, but Hitler broke this pact and started fighting the Russians in the Battle of Stalingrad. Hitler also started the Holocaust, where he took people of Jewish faith and threw them into concentration camps where 6 million of them died, this was a short term cause to the war. Hitler was throwing Jews into these camps before it was a world war and it caused Europe to get angry at Germany. Yes the treaty of Versailles did effect Germany in many ways, but they wanted another war. They started the war when they tried to take over the world.
The United States, Britain, France, and Italy caused WW2, not Germany

When the first World War ended the four great powers of the winning side sent their leaders to draft the Treaty of Versailles. The United States, Britain, France, and Italy were each represented respectively by President Woodrow Wilson, Prime Minister David Llyod George, Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau, and Premier Vittorio Orlando. These four men drafted the Treaty of Versailles under which Germany was economically crippled. Not only were they in debt from the war but they were expected to pay unlimited reparations to the countries in Europe. The Treaty's 14 points also limited the German military and navy to almost nothing and forced Germany to surrender a large portion of its land. This left Germany in an awful depression with an almost powerless government. Because of the weakened state that the German people were left in the Nazi Party which exploited the fear and anger that most of them felt. The Nazi Party began to grow in power due the rising support in German nationalsim that they were advertising. The Nazi Party was only able to take power because of how the Treaty of Versailles left the German people after the first World War therefore the treaty holds the blame for causing the war. A treaty which was written by leaders of the United States, Britain, France, and Italy. Also, in address to one of the comments, while Woodrow Wilson did not actually sign the Treaty of Versailles he was still there during its drafting. His 14 point plan was the basis of the treaty and the only reason that he did not officially sign the document was because US congress voted against it. http://www.bbc.co.uk... http://www.britannica.com... https://www.gilderlehrman.org...
My mom is the best

I accept. Since we don't have too many characters--only 500--I'll use this round to outline PRO's BOP, and then get into argumentation in the next wrong. PRO's burden is not only to affirm the resolution, but to establish a framework by which he is able to affirm. The resolution is an objective statement, so he must be able to evidence and establish objective criteria for what constitutes "best" and then show his mom fits those criteria.
Wikipedia should be deleted completely

Considering my opponents succinct opening statements, I shall attempt to mirror similarly. The resolution proposes that Wikipedia, the internet web site, should be deleted completely. I contest this notion. Pro supports the proposition with his argument, wherein he states, "Wikipedia spreads filthy liberal claptrap." It appears that Pro is suggesting the removal of the site is justifiable due to the "liberal" based criteria that is permeated throughout the site. This is merely an assertion. Pro then states that "Wikipedia claims that evolution is widely accepted." This implies that he is not a proponent of Evolution, which is irrelevant, but demonstrates that he himself is not impartial, biased if you will, in regards to criticizing the website. This contradicts his next statement wherein he states," Wikipedia is biased and it should be deleted." Pro seems to neglect that it is him who is biased, which I demonstrated above. Pro appears to scrutinize the website with a political filter, or lens, which inevitably will obfuscate his ability to impartially analyze the content of the website. Rather than adopt a propaganda based review of the website, which he failed to demonstrate any liberal content within the site, examining the veracity of the content found in Wikipedia would deem a more formidable case to affirm the resolution. A study conducted to represent the accuracy of Wikipedia as it pertains to drug information suggested that the overall accuracy and completeness was 93.9%. The degree of accuracy qualifies the content as a suitable and accurate source of information. Over to you, Pro. (1) https://www.wikipedia.org... (2)http://www.plosone.org...
The argument is about the Rights of the unborn.

My opponent maintains the belief that fetus’s do not feel pain. I have done as he asked and provided a few credible sources that do in fact support that fetus’s do feel pain… Abortion is difficult and painful for the unborn child. Surgeon Robert P. N. Shearin states that: “As early as eight to ten weeks after conception, and definitely by thirteen-and-a-half weeks, the unborn experiences organic pain…. First, the unborn child's mouth, at eight weeks, then her hands at ten weeks, then her face, arms, and legs at eleven weeks become sensitive to touch. By thirteen-and-a-half weeks, she responds to pain at all levels of her nervous system in an integrated response which cannot be termed a mere reflex. She can now experience pain” http://www.abortionfacts.com... “5 Weeks Pain Receptors Four or five weeks after conception, pain receptors appear around the mouth, followed by nerve fibers, which carry stimuli to the brain. By 18 weeks, pain receptors have appeared throughout the body. Around week 6, the unborn child first responds to touch.” http://www.nrlc.org... My opponent ignored my other arguments of the fetus having rights in criminal cases and the fact that the baby is in fact different from the mother. I do have to agree with con when he says “If it should not be the mother's choice to have an abortion then the U.S. should make abortion illegal.” Thank you for viewing this debate and I think you will find my arguments more valid and over all convincing. Vote Pro!!!!
The argument is about the Rights of the unborn.

"Unborn babies feel pain... Studies have shown that unborn babies can feel pain as early as the 17th week of pregnancy. In most states however, abortion is legal as far along as the 20th week of pregnancy." -That is what you stated in round 2, please provide evidence from where you got your information. I feel that you that up. Babies don't feel pain at all. The only pain they feel is when they're born. "It should not be a mothers choice to murder her baby..." -If it should not be the mother's choice to have an abortion then the U.S. should make abortion illegal. Over to Pro
The argument is about the Rights of the unborn.

My ArgumentsUnborn babies feel pain... Studies have shown that unborn babies can feel pain as early as the 17th week of pregnancy. In most states however, abortion is legal as far along as the 20th week of pregnancy. Fetus's have been known to flinch and jerk away from Medical Tools used for abortion and incisions.It should not be a mothers choice to murder her baby... The baby may reside in the mother but it is not her. The baby has different DNA and could even be the opposite gender. Think of it this way you reside in a home of some sort, however, you are not a part of that home.Rebuttal Opponent"Unborn babies do not have rights..." Someone is considered a human if there is signs of brain activity and/or a heartbeat. An unborn baby can have one or both characteristics as early as 1 week old. If some murders a woman while she is pregnant then the offender will be charged with a double homicide. If the unborn baby is not a human then how on God's green earth could it be a victim of homicide?My opponent... He states that the law counts a fetus a person at 3 months which is around 12 weeks. My argument above clarifies that abortions are allowed up until 20 weeks allowed. So by my opponents on admission, there is an eight week interval where killing a human being is by his logic completely justified.