BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Creator of the Universe

Clearly my opponent does not wish to debate the issue at hand. Rather it seems they have decided to use this "debate" as a platform to blaspheme God and ridicule creationism. My opponents whole argument against my case for DNA as evidence for God was, "The DNA model is in no way scientific evidence proving that the Creator of the Universe is real." My opponent chooses to make unsupported claims without even explaining why I am wrong. My opponent's misotheism is easily refuted as it is illogical and self refuting. Misotheists basically say there is no God because He does not meet their twisted ideals of a god, yet in the same breathe they are conceding to His existence as they detail their dislike of Him. If I rejected evolution merely because I did not like it or because it did not agree with my worldview, that would be foolish and dishonest of me. But to reject God for the same reasons despite the evidence of Him is even worse as the repercussions are infinitely worse. You ask why God would take it so personally when a person rejects Him. The answer is that He loves us. He created us and in that sense is our Father. He is the source of all life, so to reject God is to reject life. He is a holy and just God and must punish sin. But He is also merciful and has provided a way for every person to be with Him in heaven upon trusting in Jesus for salvation. He takes it personally because He does not want any to perish; He desires all men to come unto the knowledge of the truth and be saved.
Students shouldn't have homework at school

Well, mostly parents are unable to help their child with homework because some subjects(algebra, geometry, chemistry) are very hard to explain for non-professionals. In that case only additional tutor can assist. However, there might be the ways when students can have no homework and still get good education and understandie all material. For example, the amount of time spent at school can be increased( I don't think that studying for extra two hours per day would too catastrophical). Also, by doing everything at school, students would be able able to ask their teachers about all hard tasks. That is undoubtly much better that sitting at home and trying to understand everything yourself for hours with no progress.
Students shouldn't have homework at school

I think there should be homework in schools because if teachers didn't have homework, they wouldn't be able to get much done. Especially in high school when you have one semester to teach an entire topic. I remember kids would have to take it home. You would have change the entire curriculum or increase the school year in order to have no homework. Which are two big changes to the school. I can understand no homework from kindergarten to grade 6, but 7,8, and high school should have homework in my opinion. Another reason is homework could help the kids learn something with there parents if they didn't understand what there teacher said. It helps me a lot. I can understand you saying too much homework getting away from free time. I can agree, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be any homework. Maybe a couple sheets a week and on project every other month.
EPL is better than Primera Liga

OK. You said only R.MADRID & BARCA has been performed well in the league. but let's see the score board of two leagues. http://www.footballepl.com... http://www.footballepl.com... the gap of winning point between top 7 is not quiet distinguished. So your first factor is not persuasive. and also second factor be because what you said is just your opinion, not the fact. do you have a objective parameter for the technology of each league's broadcasting sys.?
EPL is better than Primera Liga

Do you know about the World Best Eleven in 2013? ALVES, PIQUE, XAVI, INIESTA, MESSI [BARCA], RAMOS, CASILLAS, MARCELO, X.ALONSO, CHRISTIANO[R.MADRID],FALCAO[AT.MADRID] This is the list of world best eleven chosen by specialist & fans You can see the ODD fact that the men who picked up are now playing in Primera Liga! that perfectly shows the truth EPL is absolutely lower level than Primera Liga.
Blondes are more fun

A survey that was conducted on behalf of Garnier Nutrisse Ultra Color by Empathy Research has shown some interesting findings when it comes to people’s perceptions of blondes, brunettes and red heads. The survey interviewed 950 people who were aged between 18 and 45, with a mixture of male and female participants. The saying ‘blondes have more fun’ seemed to ring true in the survey, as the vote showed they were considered the best in bed. http://rsvpmagazine.ie... Why a blonde? 1)Their hair looks gorgeous with tan skin. You can’t deny how hot blondes look in their bikinis next to an ocean. They’re like real life mermaids. Blondes are the ultimate beach babes. 2)They look like they can surf. That’s not a bad reputation to have.Surfing is by far the hottest sport ever. Props if you’re blonde and actually know how to surf. 3)Marilyn Monroe was blonde. The classic American beauty and one of the most photographed woman to ever live, Marilyn Monroe, was in fact blonde. 4)Red lipstick or red dress and blonde hair? Oh yeah... Red lipstick and blonde hair is a match made in heaven. I shouldn't even start talking about blondes and red dresses. 5)Barbie is blonde Barbie is the ultimate expression of style, elegance and beauty. She is blonde! Accident? I don't think so. 6)Blondes stand out from the crowd. Notice how you always feel compelled to unintentionally stare at a blonde girl in a room full of people. They stand out from the crowd, it’s a fact. 7)Blondes are rare. Natural blonde hair is rare and makes up approximately 2% of the world’s population. If you know anything about supply and demand, then you’ll realize why blondes are in high demand. 8)And finally, as I showed above, blondes are better in bed. According to an actual survey conducted, blondes are, in fact, better in bed. Numbers don’t lie. Neither do polls. Prove me wrong Con.
Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.

Rebuttals: Con asserts that those who break the law “don’t understand the importance of laws or else they would follow them.” Con even says “I would say that breaking the law is certainly not caring about it. If you cared about the rules and the law you would not break them in the first place.” “Yes all people have the right to vote but some need to understand that if you break the law things are going to be taken away from you.” So if one breaks a law they do not understand the importance of law and should have the right to vote taken away? How about lesser crimes, like speeding? If I speed, according to con, I am expressing that I do not care for law in general, and should not have the right to vote. That seems like a huge assumption that those who break laws do not care about laws. Conclusion: Breaking the law does not equal not caring about law. What about Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, etc. They broke laws… They also understood the importance of laws. More than that they understood individual rights should be protected. Rights like voting. If the right to vote is taken away, our entire system of government cannot live up to its primary purpose. In the interest of our government filling its purpose, or in other words, securing the unalienable rights afforded to all men, it is only reasonable to conclude that Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.Thanks for reading,Vote pro.
Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.

Since they have been in prison they have basically admitted that they are not capable of making rational decisions. We should not give them the opportunity to pick who will be the president or choose other prominent officials that will make decisions for everybody else. Yes all men are "created" equal, but they do not always end up like everybody else. Some choose to live an honest life and others don't. I would say that breaking the law is certainly not caring about it. If you cared about the rules and the law you would not break them in the first place. Felons don't understand the importance of the laws or else they would follow them. Yes all people have the right to vote but some need to understand that if you break the law things are going to be taken away from you. By felons being able to vote all that would do would be to create problems. Those opposed to this issue could backlash and maybe they will stop voting. Felons would only vote for who will give them what they want, not what is best for the country.
Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.

Rebuttals: Con says “Felons have demonstrated bad behavior in choosing to commit the crime they did. So I would think that they are then unfit to make the most important decision than can make, which is to pick the person who will run our country.” Voting includes a lot more than just the vote cast for President. Unfit or not, our system is built on a concept of the consent of the governed. That includes consent of those being governed from prison. Con says “If we give felons the right to vote, then we are basically saying that there is no difference between them and law abiding citizens. That just does not seem right to me.” right, no difference when it comes to unalienable rights and representation. Being in prison should provide enough of a distinction between felons and non felons… Con says “Yes the government needs to protect people, but not for their voting rights. If they did the crime they need to know that there will be consequences and not being able to vote anymore should be one of them. They should not have the privilege to pick who makes the laws if you are not going to follow them yourself.” The Declaration of Independence reads ““We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” Governments are instituted to protect rights... including the right to vote. Con says “If felons cared about what the government did then they would not be going out breaking the law that the government has set into place.” Breaking the law does not equal not caring about law. What about Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, etc. They broke laws… They also understood the importance of laws. More than that they understood individual rights should be protected. Rights like voting. Extended Arguments: If the right to vote is taken away, our entire system of government cannot live up to its primary purpose. In the interest of our government filling its purpose, or in other words, securing the unalienable rights afforded to all men, it is only reasonable to conclude that Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.
Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.

Felons have demonstrated bad behavior in choosing to commit the crime they did. So I would think that they are then unfit to make the most important decision than can make, which is to pick the person who will run our country. If we give felons the right to vote, then we are basically saying that there is no difference between them and law abiding citizens. That just does not seem right to me. Yes the government needs to protect people, but not for their voting rights. If they did the crime they need to know that there will be consequences and not being able to vote anymore should be one of them. They should not have the privilege to pick who makes the laws if you are not going to follow them yourself. If felons cared about what the government did then they would not be going out breaking the law that the government has set into place. Yes people are born with equal rights, but when someone chooses to break the laws that have been set in place, and then they have given up the chance to be treated equally with everybody else.
Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.

We live in a society that accepts the notion of unalienable rights. As a society we accept that the main duty of a government is to secure such rights. Such a government receives their power from the consent of the governed. In our society this is done through voting. A: Unalienable Rights “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ” (Declaration of Independence) Unalienable: “impossible to take away or give up” (1) We live in a society that accepts the concept that some rights are unalienable B: The Duty of Government “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men” (Declaration of Independence) “Locke believed that natural rights were inalienable, and that the rule of God therefore superseded government authority;” (2) We live in a society that requires of its government the protection and security of such rights C: The Power of the People “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”(Declaration of Independence) “Rousseau believed that democracy (self-rule) was the best way of ensuring the general welfare while maintaining individual freedom under the rule of law. ”(2) We live in a society that dictates that the power of government come from the consent of the governed. D: The whole picture We live in a society that accepts… 1: All people born equal with rights 2: Government’s function is to secure unalienable rights 3: Government receives power through the consent of the governed via voting What happens when we take away the right to vote? 1: Government cannot receive power through consent of the governed if the governed cannot vote. 2: Without consent or power the government cannot secure unalienable rights Conclusion: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”( Declaration of Independence) If the right to vote is taken away, our entire system of government cannot live up to its primary purpose. In the interest of our government filling its purpose, or in other words, securing the unalienable rights afforded to all men, it is only reasonable to conclude that Felons should have voting rights in the modern U. S. (1) . http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.

Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. A: Clarification/Context So as to be as clear as possible. I am arguing that so called Felons should retain the right to vote in spite of being felons. Below is some basic information on the current circumstance in regard to the debate topic. “The idea of taking away a criminal's right to vote has been around since ancient Greece and Rome. A condition called "civil death" in Europe involved the forfeiture of property, the loss of the right to appear in court, and a prohibition on entering into contracts, as well as the loss of voting rights. Civil death was brought to America by English colonists, but most aspects of it were eventually abolished, leaving only felon disenfranchisement intact in some parts of modern America.”(1) “5.3 million Americans (1 in 40 adults) were unable to vote due to a felony conviction in the 2008 elections. This included 1.4 million African-American men, more than 676,000 women, and 2.1 million ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. “(1) “State approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. In Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote, without a pardon from the governor. Virginia and Florida have supplementary programs which facilitate gubernatorial pardons. The remaining 45 states have 45 different approaches to the issue. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically gain the right to vote upon the completion of their sentence. In some states, ex-felons must wait for a certain period of time after the completion of their sentence before rights can be restored. In some states, an ex-felon must apply to have voting rights restored.”(1) B: Burden of proof As I am proposing the change to the status quo, I accept the burden of proof. I must affirm the resolution. C: Debate Format 4 rounds/6,000 characters/72 hrs. 1st round: acceptance 2nd and 3rd rounds: Arguments and rebuttals 4th round: Final rebuttal and closing statements (No new arguments) (1) http://www.ncsl.org...
The Office(U. S. ) is the best sitcom

I will now address the three main arguments made in round one. Point 1: (It's funny) I agree with this statement, But I think a lot of shows are funny. Most people have a favorite show. It is all about how it relates to the person watching it. The Office could be the most funny show to you, But I might think Futurama or The Orville. How we relate to a show is determined by many things. Age, Culture, And interests to name a few would influence whether or not I find a show funny or entertaining. Point 2: (What it says about society) I find this in a lot of Sitcoms. Friends, Seinfeld, How I Met Your Mother all show interpersonal relationships and relationship dynamics. The most important aspect of Sitcoms is to relate with their audience. If they do not succeed, The show will be discontinued. I agree that The Office does a good job, But I would argue against it being the best. Point 3: (Shows us that education can only take people so far) This sounds like a moment in the show that really spoke to you. I remember an episode of Seinfeld where George Costanza double dipped the chip. A person noticed and approached George about it. The dialog was brilliant and impactful. I had trouble eating dip with other people after that. I was afraid they may have double dipped, And "that's like sticking your whole mouth right in the dip. " Moments like these are what make shows great. Many shows have these qualities. What makes The Office stand out over the rest? We each have our likes and dislikes. Most people have a favorite Sitcom. My ultimate case for the best rests entirely on the number of people watching the show.
The Office(U. S. ) is the best sitcom

Is "The Office" the best Sitcom? Definition of best: "Of the most excellent, Effective, Or desirable type or quality. " What do we think of when we say the best? Tiger Woods was the best at Golf, And Jack Nicklaus before him. Michael Jordan was the best at Basketball. We determine "best" by the results or accomplishments achieved. There should be some objective way to figure out if The Office is in fact the best Sitcom. What are some of the competition? The big Bang Theory, Brooklyn Nine-Nine, It"s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Will & Grace, How I Met Your Mother, 30 Rock, That 70"s Show, Roseanne, Friends, Seinfeld, Everybody Loves Raymond, Etc. The Office Season 5 had the highest viewer average of 8. 7 million. The Big Bang Theory had 8. 4 million in Season 1, And over 20 million in Seasons 7 and 9. Seinfeld averaged over 26. 6 million views per Season, With over 76 million views for the finale. Friends had an average of over 23 million per Season, With over 52 million views for the finale. The Office is no doubt successful, Funny, And witty. If we look at the data, It lags well behind other Sitcoms in ratings and viewers. The ultimate goal of any show is to be watched, And if we determine the winner by excellence, Effectiveness, And desirable types and qualities, There are clearly other shows who out rank The Office.
The Office(U. S. ) is the best sitcom

I will be arguing that The Office(U. S. ) is the best sitcom(situation comedy. ) This is true for 3 reasons. First, It's funny. The Office is a hilarious TV show from various pop-culture references, Such as Michael's famous line "Dwight, You ignorant sl*t! , " which is a reference to SNL of the time, To original jokes like Jim's pranks. Second, What it says about society. I maintain that The Office is an allegory for society. Michael represents the ignorant in society, Being educated by the intelligentsia, The rest of the office, We see how Michael gets more socially competent and caring throughout the show. It also tells us that even the ignorant in society are necessary, We see that Michael is a magnificent salesman, And we see that in the absence of the ignorant, The intelligentsia break down into infighting. This is seen especially in the episode "Prince Family Paper" when Michael leaves the office, Everyone else spends the whole day arguing whether or not actress Hillary Swank is hot. Finally, The Office shows us that education can only take people so far. In the seventh season when Michael leaves for good, He is symbolically going out on his own, Because the office has taught him all they can. And when he returns in the final episode we see that he has accomplished all his goals, He has children, A wife, And a family cellphone plan. Finally, The Office has extreme attention to detail, Like any long running TV show The Office does have a few plot holes, But overall they are very good at carrying little jokes throughout the show and making subtle choices that only add to the quality. Instances of this are when the clown painting that once hung in Jim and Pam's house is being sold at the office garage sale, And that in the Saint Patrick's Day episode, Michael accidentally puts an Italian flag instead of an Irish flag on his desk. Overall what we see is that The Office is funny, Attentive, And uses these to communicate truths about our society in a comedic and engaging way, For these reasons we must conclude that it is the best sitcom.
Affirmative action

The original intent of Affirmative Action is good, to ensure equal opportunity without regard to race. In order to do that we might have to give some one, who in the past was denied opportunity because of their race, special consideration. With out this law I believe there are many who would not participate in the practice of equal opportunity for all. While the law, as it stands, might have it's shortcomings we don't throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. We can not let our nation degenerate to where it was when this law was forced into existence. Of course a person has to be qualified for what ever opportunity they want to be considered for but if they are qualified should not be denied because of race and that is all Affirmative Action first set out to achieve. Anyone who has ever witnessed the ugly observance of racial discrimination or felt it's harmful sting knows the importance of remaining diligent to make sure it is forever banished from our society. I also find it disturbing that there has to be laws to make people do what is morally right but that is the world we live in. So if it has to be that way, so be it. Thank you for this challenge. I wish you could have participated.