BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Wikipedia, with certain standards, can be used as a source on debate.org

I will be defining what I mean by "certain standards". Any statement that is being made on wikipedia must have a source to back it up. Basically, if wikipedia says that dogs like eating metal (just a random example, whether it's true or not), and there is a credible source backing it up, wikipedia is good enough. I want this debate to be lighthearted and not too technical. Let's just keep it fun. Dropped arguments are conceded. I await my opponent's response!
There should be no such thing as an "athletic scholarship"

I must admit, I have never debated this before, with anyone, but I am very much looking forward to this debate with a fellow Stanley Kubrick fan(LOVE A Clockwork Orange). I will be arguing that athletic scholarships should absolutely continue to be granted to those students who have earned them through years of practice, hard work, and generally high levels of academic achievement. I will also show that colleges are businesses, and athletes bring large amounts of revenue into the schools, which in turn allow these schools to offer even a better education. Furthermore, I would like to illustrate that any student lucky enough to be granted a scholarship to college should not feel bad for it, but instead to take full advantage, because there is no doubt that this world needs as many educated people as we can get. With that, I will allow my opponent to open up with his arguments, and wish him good luck. Also, thank you to the readers for your time, and I hope we do not disappoint.
There should be no such thing as an "athletic scholarship"

I'll keep it simple for now: High school athletes should not receive college athletic scholarships because: 1) Athletic ability serves no purpose in college other than creating and propagating a self fulling program of interscholastic sports which costs universities millions of dollars to create and maintain when said money could be used to better actual academic programs. 2) Being given money and preferential treatment during college admissions for an otherwise useless ability in the real world robs better deserving students of a chance at said college or money.
on balance, government employee labor unions have a positive impact on the united states

I will now rebut my opponent's points. His first point was Government employee labor unions helps employees get what they deserve and get treated fairly. The worker who is in the union will take advantage of the benefits that the unions provide. The worker will most likely sack off and do not their work but still get paid the same or higher than an average worker. So this is not only unfair to the hard working workers and is also unfair to take money away from the government. Our currently debt is 12.5 trillion dollars and we will have to pay 200 million every year just for these unions. So how is that good for the United States? We could've spend the money on something better like improve our military. In my opponents point he give the example of how the labor union is helping, but that is only one example that is just made up. There are tons more states that are having trouble with these unions. So the government employee labor unions not only hurt us but will also hurt the workers. His second point was Government employee labor unions boosts workers work. Perhaps accordingly, Gallup records significant increases in the August 2009 Work and Education survey compared with August 2006 in sentiment that unions have a negative effect on companies where workers are organized, and on the economy generally. The percentage saying unions mostly hurt the companies where workers are organized has risen from 39% in 2006 to 46% in the latest poll. As a result, Americans are now evenly divided over whether unions mostly help or mostly hurt these companies, whereas in all previous measures the balance of opinion was positive. There has been an even larger jump in the percentage saying labor unions mostly hurt the U. S. economy, from 36% in 2006 to 51% today. This is the first time since the question was established in 1997 that more Americans have said unions hurt rather than help the economy. Americans' general concerns about the current state of the economy could certainly be a factor in these more negative views of unions, in addition to specific perceptions about unions. Americans living in union households and those in non-union households have sharply different assessments of unions' impact on each of the four dimensions mentioned above. However, the widest gap is in perceptions of unions' impact on the companies where workers are unionized. Of adults living in union households (representing 18% of all U. S. adults), 7 in 10 believe unions help the companies; only 39% of residents living in non-union households agree. So the economy will fail (it is already in the dumps), it will not to any good to our economy. His third and last point was Labor Unions will provide government employees with job security. As I already explained in my rebut to his first point that the worker will take advantage in their work and the labor unions are just fighting to keep them in the job when they don't deserve it. So this is clearly unfair. My opponent failed to rebut most of my points while I have rebutted all of his.
on balance, government employee labor unions have a positive impact on the united states

I am sorry for the forfeit, i did not mean to. Now on to my points 1.Government employee labor unions helps employees get what they deserve and get treated fairly. 2.Boosts workers work.People can be not paid well even though they worked very hard on something. 3. Labor Unions will provide government employees with job security Ok,now back to my first point, Government employee labor unions helps employees get what they deserve and get treated fairly. With government Employee labor unions the employee can get what they deserve. For example, take Joe here, he is a firefighter who works harder than any other of his co-workers but his co-workers still gets paid more, now is this fair? NO. But with labor unions they will fight for Joe's rights and this is not just Joe but other people as well and according to the equal rights, every man has equal rights thus they have no rights to treat him unfairly. On to my second point 2.Government employee labor unions boosts workers work. Most likely people get motivated to work like Joe here because the labor unions are fighting for their rights. Since there are labor unions, the workers will be happy they get a raise so they start to work really good making not only the company happy but the employer as well. And because they work harder the company can support more customers for the company so the company will bloom. With this said, this all leads to a better economy, considering how our economy is currently in the toilets right now, I would think that increasing the economy would be a good idea. And finally, on to my third and final point. 3. Labor Unions will provide government employees with job security Since labor Unions fight to keep their jobs, so less employees will lose their jobs, which, as stated in point #1, will decrease the United States' total debt. If labor unions were not to exist in the United States, the unemployment rate will soar; citizens will develop insecurity in the government, which means more people will practice civil disobedience, which is protesting within the government. But as I will say, with labor unions, government employees will not lose their jobs, considering how hard it is to find another job with labor unions. And before I will end this round I would like to say my statistics. Statistics: 98% of union contracts and arguments are solved without strikes. A poll taken in the United States shows that 58% of un-employed people would join a labor union.
on balance, government employee labor unions have a positive impact on the united states

First I shall state my rebuttals against my opponents points First, while the private sector might offer better upward mobility and perhaps better benefits while employed, the private sector doesn't get pensions, and the public sector does. Please state the proof of where you have gotten this information because according to my information, the private sectors do have pensions. source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Second, we should not support anything that advocates the taxpayers spending more money in a time like this. Not really, since we can get a less chance of getting fired and saving our job, it will be worth it to spend the money. Think about it, if you pay to not have you fired you can make money but if you get fired, you lose our job and money. And since finding another job is pretty hard then you probably still want to pay the money Third, public sector labor unions are adding to the corruption of government. first of all, the government made the union I believe and the union cannot corrupt the government, if they can, how? Fourth, any increase in benefits that is granted to the public sector because of the fight given by their unions will only increase the deficit. my opponent himself has clearly stated that if we do not increase the deficit, then they will have to cut the services but since the U.S. has covered a lot of deficits, why cant they deal with this one? explain.
on balance, government employee labor unions have a positive impact on the united states

I will now present my points. First, while the private sector might offer better upward mobility and perhaps better benefits while employed, the private sector doesn't get pensions, and the public sector does. The increase in public sector pensions over the last several years has made it very difficult to justify spending as much as we do on government employees. Further, the federal government is underfunding the pension plans because there is very little money reserved for them. The Pew Center on the States recently released a survey detailing the pension plans of the public sector in all fifty states. As of 2008, states had $2.4 trillion to meet $3.4 trillion in promised pension, health care and other post-retirement benefits, according to the report. . http://www.foxnews.com... Second, we should not support anything that advocates the taxpayers spending more money in a time like this. Right now, there is no way that these unions could have net positive impact on the entire United States, because the majority of Americans don't have the money to be pouring into someone Else's job. As the benefits and salaries for public sector employees increase, so do taxes. And right now, no one can afford that. Third, public sector labor unions are adding to the corruption of government. Public sector labor unions gave to the Obama campaign in overwhelming amounts, as they have with all democratic candidates for president for decades. Many argue that this only buys loyalty to the labor unions and that these politicians are simply becoming hands of the public sector labor unions. You can argue that having such huge influence in elections is a threat to democracy and decreases the voting power of the average citizen. Fourth, any increase in benefits that is granted to the public sector because of the fight given by their unions will only increase the deficit. If we choose not to increase the deficit, the only thing that will happen is a cut to services. In order to satisfy the desires of unions for higher pay, states might have to cut down on welfare benefits or state provided health care. None of which is fair to private citizens. Thank you I look forward to your response.
on balance, government employee labor unions have a positive impact on the united states

Resolved: On balance, government employee labor unions have a positive impact on the United States. The April Public Forum topic deals with the topic of whether or not unions of government employee laborers have a net positive impact on the United States. Before examining both sides of the resolution, let's break down some basic terms. In this context, a "union" is generally understood to be "an organization of employees formed to bargain with the employer; "you have to join the union in order to get a job". When employees are part of unions, the union negotiates on behalf of the collective group of employees/union members and to negotiate salaries/overtime and benefits (health care, vacation time, pensions, etc). A "pension" is essentially a salary that an employee draws for the rest of his or her life once he or she retires. The resolution specifically refers to pubic employee labor unions. The difference is that employees of a private company know that they can only ask for so much in wages/benefits or those will start to threaten the viability of the company. Government employees, however, can ask for almost anything that they can get, knowing that the bill will simply have to be paid by the tax payers. The issue of public employee union wages and benefits being payed by taxpayers is what gives rise to this resolution. A declining economy/tax base is giving rise to growing government deficits that are being compounded by large obligations on the part of governments to pay (high) government employee union wages/benefits. This growing fiscal gap is increasing animosity toward public employee unions, and it is what likely gave rise to this topic and makes it timely. The final important concept/phrase in the resolution is "on the United States." My partner and I stand in firm negation to the resolution.
on balance, government employee labor unions have a positive impact on the united states

I have already stated my rebuttals but i shall repeat them. First, while the private sector might offer better upward mobility and perhaps better benefits while employed, the private sector doesn't get pensions, and the public sector does. Please state the proof of where you have gotten this information because according to my information, the private sectors and the public sectors is a problem to the economy. While this is bad, my opponent had stated it as if though it was a good thing and they want it for private sectors so, I shall say, I disagree. source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...... Second, we should not support anything that advocates the taxpayers spending more money in a time like this. Not really, since we can get a less chance of getting fired and saving our job, it will be worth it to spend the money. Think about it, if you pay to not have you fired you can make money but if you get fired, you lose our job and money. And since finding another job is pretty hard then you probably still want to pay the money Third, public sector labor unions are adding to the corruption of government. first of all, the government made the union I believe and the union cannot corrupt the government, if they can, how? Fourth, any increase in benefits that is granted to the public sector because of the fight given by their unions will only increase the deficit. my opponent himself has clearly stated that if we do not increase the deficit, then they will have to cut the services but since the U.S. has covered a lot of deficits, why cant they deal with this one? explain. And before I am done, I would like to state that my opponent did not give me any of the proof I have asked when I have clearly rebutted all of his points and he did not answer all of my question on my rebuttals, therefore, please vote for the pro side of this debate. Thank You
God exists

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence. In law, rules of evidence govern the types of evidence that are admissible in a legal proceeding, as well as the quality and quantity of evidence that are necessary to fulfill the legal burden of proof. Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence. Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method. In philosophy, the study of evidence is closely tied to epistomology, which considers the nature of knowledge and how it can be acquired.[1] Conflicting evidence or alternative explanations definitely does not equate to "no evidence." However, that does not intrinsically and/or scientifically prove God's existence either. The particular evidence he presented to establish the resolution that a monotheistic, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God in fact, exists is him being "healed" simultaneously by God after being diagnosed with an incurable disease. Then after extensive and intrusive testing, his doctor delivered the news that he had ulcerative colitis.[2] You have divulged tons of information about it. However, like my friend's ancestors quote: "If you will use alleged supernatural occurences material to the resolution, you still need to prove that that occurence ACTUALLY occured." Source(s): [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.patheos.com...
Atheism is an accepted religion.

PRO ARGUMENT: Atheism CAN be characterized as a religion. CON ARGUMENT: Atheism CAN NOT be characterized as a religion. 3 Rounds: 1st round is for acceptance, 2nd round is for arguments, 3rd round is for counter arguments and closing statements. No new arguments are allowed. Voters must deduct 3 pts for each new argument made during round 3. Both PRO and CON must make their case (burden of proof lies with both PRO and CON). By "accepted religion" I mean that it meets the definition of religion. Definitions for key terms must be defined by both PRO and CON in round 2 (no new definitions are allowed after the second round or voters will deduct 3 pts per new definition). Their interpretations are open for argument in rounds 2 and 3. The definition of "religion" will obviously be important in order to define its boundaries. Its boundaries are not limited to the literal (dictionary) definition of religion. PRO and CON can make logical arguments for societal definitions. There must be logical arguments and evidence presented when presenting "societies" definition or a "working" definition. I urge voters to be critical when reviewing these types of definitions to ensure that the proper evidence is presented. This is my first debate. I have set some limitations on members that wish to challenge this debate and I admit, I would not meet these limitations myself. However, I feel I have strong arguments and I only want serious debaters. If you don't meet the limitations but feel you are in my boat, please message me and I'll consider the challenge. Thanks and good luck!
Debates over debates

As Pro, I'm assuming my position is to advocate debating over debates. A quick rebuttal: Con opens her position stating , "i dont see the need of people to say im wrong when i state a debate." I disagree. When making one's case, I believe that maintaining that your opponent is wrong is actually the entire purpose of a debate in general (and proving that your position is correct, of course). Con then explains, "A debate is based on opinions and what YOU think is right therefore debates should be based on two people using there opinions aginst one an other." Again, I disagree. I don't think that debating is based on one's opinions. It's actually supposed to be based on facts and/or logical conclusions. In a debate tournament, for instance, one does not get to choose the position they argue. Thus it's not about individual preferences or points of view; it's about making the more effective arguments and stating one's case in a more articulate, clever, original and convincing manner. Next, Con writes, "What i find terribly stupid is people judging me over a debate , theres a fine line between 2 people having a matture and opinionated debate as opposed to two people judging one another and using pathetic excuses like your spelling is terrible or what not" -- Hmm, again we disagree. It's only natural that certain deductions/judgments be made when reading something that someone has written. By nature, one is evaluating the words, the concepts, the grammar, etc. while reading and using context clues to determine the writer's beliefs, education, experience, knowledge, and other factors relevant to the debate. I think judgments are hard to avoid; however, agree that mature discussion is more productive than "using pathetic excuses" for judgment. It must be noted, however, that I don't think poor grammar is a 'pathetic' excuse. I think it's a valid characteristic of judgment regarding online debate. It reflects the debater's ability to make an argument flow and present a comprehensible persuasive piece of writing. Finally Con writes, "Nobody can say they are right about something which is completeley based on different beliefs and facts." Actually, anybody can say anything (and even have it be valid) if one can prove it or back it up with facts and out-argue a nay-sayer. Moreover, this argument is hypocritical. This resolution is based on a belief and yet Con is attempting to argue her belief over mine. Hmm, interesting. My argument: If debate is about proving a case, I don't see why one couldn't debate over a debate. For instance, people can debate whether a debate was interesting or not, whether or not the resolution was favorable or compelling, if one debater had greater skill or points than another, etc. In that case, I have successfully affirmed the resolution (or rather supported it) - debating over debates. As Pro, I advocate that debating over debates can be fun, successful (as in discovering a conclusion or answer to a question) and helpful in guiding people to become better debaters and increasing the exchange of ideas. ... Con, back to you.
Debates over debates

Yes this is a debate aboout debates! it sounds contridictary but i dont see the need of people to say im wrong when i state a debate, A debate is based on opinions and what YOU think is right therefore debates should be based on two people using there opinions aginst one an other. What i find terribly stupid is people judging me over a debate , theres a fine line between 2 people having a matture and opinionated debate as opposed to two people judging one another and using pathetic excuses like your spelling is terrible or what not , Nobody can say they are right about something which is completeley based on different beliefs and facts.
We Should Remove the Age of Consent

In that comment you have posted a considerable amount of illogical personal abuse but have failed in every way to describe in any way why you think the age of consent should be removed. What have I said in that comment that makes me comparable to Hitler and Stalin? How am I sick or twisted? I merely underlined a few of the reasons why the age of consent law exists. What makes you think allowing children to have sex is a good idea? Do you want to have sexual relations with young children? I see no other reason why you would make such strange claims otherwise. Child grooming is a serious issue and by removing the age of consent the only thing that would be achieved would be to make paedophiles life easier, an increase in teenage pregnancies, increased levels of sexually transmitted diseases in children and increased levels of child abuse. You need to make some substantial arguments to back up your claims.
We Should Remove the Age of Consent

It's sick, twisted individuals like yourself that have desecrated this Earth. If i had a gun, two bullet and were standing in a room with you, Adolf Hitler and Stalin, i would shoot you twice, once in the head and once in the dick, so that even if you came back to life you wouldn't have the ability to continue your spree of rape. In times like this i wonder what your mother would think. I bet she'd be proud. You necrophilic monstrosity.