BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A prenuptial agreement is a smart choice

I agree with my opponent. No couple is immune to divorce. My opponent made an interesting and true point. Fiftey percent of Americans get a divorce/inullment. However, as my opponent stated, most marriages age ranges are very young. They realize that their actions were rash, and before they have long term relationship, divorice. If they have something of value at such a young age (especially with the current economy), the judge can clearly distinguish what is rightfully theirs, and they often make the right decisions, because they are expert professionals at their job. Prenup is a form of insurance, I do agree. But is it a nessicary insurance? Not probable. If you stay together, there is always doubt there. If they do break up, not 100% of those divorces call upon community property to steal everything away, it's actually not as predominate as you might think. I disagree with my opponent when she said "Couples neglect to concern marriage as the business contract that it is." Because marrige itself is not a business, nor is it a contract. It is a legal document saying that a couple are officaly conjoined spiritually, mentally, emotionally, and physically. (I noted that my opponent did not cite a source for "Without a prenup, one party loses and one party gains, and it is usually the gainer that doesn't deserve a cent." Does our justice system EVER make the correct decision on prenup? Or is it always wrong?) Because of these reasons, I urge you to vote a negative ballot...or whatever the voting system is here. I wish my opponent good luck. (but that doesn't mean that I don't want to win!)
A prenuptial agreement is a smart choice

As an honest gesture, I would like to acknowledge that my opponent had made a very good rebuttal saying that the connection between life insurance and a prenup is invalid, considering that death is a guaranteed possibility. HOWEVER, it just so happens that life insurance is the only exception to my point (the connection between homeowner' s insurance and car insurance is still valid). My opponent himself has agreed: A prenuptial agreement is a form of insurance that protects your finances in the event of divorce. My opponent has failed to counter my argument that couples are not immune to divorce, which only leaves me to believe that he agrees with this point as well. If not, my opponent must realize that no amount of experience can ever prevent with all certainty, the possibility of failure. If we are to believe that it is possible for an experienced driver to have an accident, what is preventing my opponent and/or any of his supporters from believing that a loving, trustful married couple of many years experience might end in divorce? Now realizing that possibility, why forfeit your say in your belongings to the decision of a judge in court? In conclusion, It is my belief that social conditioning has prevented our society from viewing marriage as built upon nothing more than love and trust, as my opponent insists it is. If my opponent were correct, then why does our country have a fifty-percent divorce rate? I've never heard of a couple that was contemplating marriage without loving and trusting each other before-hand. Certainly love and trust isn't enough to keep half of all marriages together. Couples neglect to concern marriage as the business contract that it is, one that is riddled with financial responsibilities. If still unconvinced that a prenuptial agreement is a smart choice, remember that with a prenup, neither party has anything to lose nor gain. Without a prenup, one party loses and one party gains, and it is usually the gainer that doesn't deserve a cent.
A prenuptial agreement is a smart choice

First of all, I disagree with my opponent, "Saying a prenup advocates divorce is like saying life insurance advocates death" Death is not a possibility- it's a garentee. So I do not understand my opponents statement. However I do agree that a prenup is an insurance, like house insurance. In the unlikely event of a disaster, there is always a possibility. But would you pay thousands of dollars for a house in a quiet neighborhood with respectful people and little natural disaster activities? Probably not. It is a waste of time. However, there is always going to be a few exceptions, like that of celebrities. However, I am not saying that we all do not have something worth protecting, but I am dissuading from the topic. The point is, a prenuptual agreement is not a smart choice, because it chips at the foundation of trust that marraige is built upon. Would you like to marry someone that you truely love, only to find out they want a prenup? And by the way, you don't always have to conjoin finances, like bank accounts. (Gtg or i'll be late for school. Good luck!)
A prenuptial agreement is a smart choice

A couple is wrong to assume that they are immune to divorce. Couples obtain prenups with the mindset of which a driver fastens his seat belt: As well-coordinated and careful as you may be, the odds that you will end up in a mess are never completely gone. Now with that said, if my fiancï¿½e asked "Why did you get a prenup?" or "Do you not trust me?", I would simply say that "It's not that I do not trust or love you, it's that I want to be protected if something does go wrong." Saying a prenup advocates divorce is like saying life insurance advocates death, and that's exactly how couples should view a prenup (marital insurance). Just like any other insurance, you hope you do not have to use it. Marriage and divorce CAN be a factor in starting a business. One must remember that marriage is the financial binding between two beings, even though that seems to be hidden in the facade of solely being about love and trust. Also, I did not say that 18-25 year olds are the ones most likely dealing with debts, businesses and family inheritance, but that by that age in one's life, it is difficult to grasp what kind of endeavors and failures such as these may be awaiting in the future. The perfect example of this: What if Bill Gates had married Melinda during this age range? Since most likely being unaware that he would eventually become the huge business magnate that he is now, I'm sure he wouldn't have taken the idea of a prenup very seriously. Now if that had happened, Bill Gates would now be praying daily that she doesn't divorce him.
A prenuptial agreement is a smart choice

If a couple gets prenup, it would question the others motives and actually divide communication. If it does enable communication, the only discussion it could open up is, "Honey, why did you get prenup? Do you not trust me?" Sure, in some marraiges it is a scam, and they shouldn't be trusted. However, if they are gullible enough to marry someone who they think they can trust, odds are they are going to lose their money to someone else. (I do not commend doing that though) I do not see how marraige has any relation with a business. As for my opponents comment on age of marraige (18-25) it is not likely that they will have much of anything really. I never have known an 18 year old with a business. If they have debts, it isn't much unless they are a big spender, even then, they can't charge on credit cards too much, because they have no credit. And they could be mentioned in a will, but it takes SEVERAL YEARS to recieve the money. But I digress. A prenup states that community property is void. When you are married, you basically own what the other owns. A prenup isn't always accurate either. (tired of writing. So, this is where i quit. Waiting on you)
A prenuptial agreement is a smart choice

Thank you for accepting this challenge. Look forward to an interesting debate! I agree with my opponent in that marriage has a strong foundation in love, trust, and devotion. However, most people overlook the fact that marriage is essentially a business contract, and just like any business, partners have rights and duties to one another. So too often couples will use love as an excuse to hide concerns over their debts, inheritances, secret bank accounts or even talk about money. Of course people aren't "stupid" for deciding to get married without obtaining a prenup, and it is their right to believe that love and trust will conquer through the financial difficulties. All I have to say to this is good luck because one can NEVER be so sure that their marriage will either fail or succeed. Odds may be in your favor, but are never certain. Prenups enable communication, the lack of which is one of the biggest reasons for divorce. In response to my opponents second point: Since many more commitments occur during the course of a marriage (especially when married at the age of 18-25, as most people are.) There is an even greater need to protect your rightfully earned assets: Starting your own business - If a married spouse who owns a business finds them self in a divorce without a prenup, the other spouse may assume a portion of the business revenue. Family inheritance - A prenup can protect the inheritance of children from a previous marriage. Debts - A prenup can protect a spouse from assuming responsibility for their spouses' debt. All 3 circumstances listed above can be avoided through the decision to obtain a prenup. Without a prenup, important decisions may lay in the hands of a judge.
A prenuptial agreement is a smart choice

Allow me to first point out that a marriage is based on love, trust, and devotion. This is essentially the foundation of the entire concept of marriage. Without trust or devotion, marriage is a joke. If you choose the wrong person to marry then that is your fault, and it is not fair to say that those who do love and trust each other enough not to get prenup are not smart. Secondly, I do agree with my opponent, there is nothing weak about protecting what you have. But when you are considered "smart" of protecting something from someone that you hold mutual love for, that is absolutely ridiculous. If you have to protect yourself agenst someone you love, there is no point in marriage. Lastly, I would like to point out to my opponent that not every (actually few marriages) are based on the idea of a fairytale marriage. Most people understand that marriage is going to be a struggle. Those who think it will be a fairytale, live in fairytale worlds. (Good luck!)
A prenuptial agreement is a smart choice

Some may say it shows a sign of early weakness in a marriage, but the truth of the matter is that there is nothing weak about protecting yourself and what is valuable to you. Prenups restore a sense of communication between couples and gets the "fairy tale marriage" idea out of the way and brings upon the realization of what a marriage really is: a risk. I'll take safe over sorry any day. Thank you to whoever accepts this debate.
This Party Would Ban School Uniforms

1) Uniforms act as an equaliser, and help conceal problematic divides such as class differences. 2) They therefore are also better for families which have less money, as students do not feel pressured to buy expensive designer clothing. 3) Non-uniform clothes can contain offensive or derogatory language. Uniforms remove this problem. 4) Students who wear uniforms are, on average, better behaved, and perform well academically when compared to their non-uniform counterparts. 5) Students wearing a uniform are identifiable as school students. This makes them less likely to truant, as they would be at greater risk of being caught. Onto some brief refutation: Yes, some students do indeed struggle to express themselves through music, art, poetry, and various other methods. This single point does not outweigh the above points, which are much more solid reasons to keep school uniforms. It is also worth noting that school is not necessarily an appropriate time to express oneself through fashion- this can be a considerable distraction from students' academic pursuits, and students can easily express themselves through fashion outside of school.
This Party Would Ban School Uniforms

I believe school uniforms should be banned from schools because half of our lives are spent at school and every person deserves to express themselves as they are. I find it unfair that teachers are telling students to express themselves more then again, some express them selves using paper, pencil, markers, their voices ect. but some use the art of fashion. It is basically hard for them to express their personality. Use a person with a angry personality for example; I am sure you would not want them expressing themselves verbally do you? and not all are good with drawing, painting and other 2-Dimensional work so many use the art of fashion to express themselves and that my opponent is my major point.
First Person Shooters

I humbly accept the challenge from Frank_Blascovic for First Person Shooters "I believe that the video game market is extremely congested with First Person Shooters. Most of them just feel like carbon copies of one another. This is not good, if this continues we might end up with another market crash." What I believe I am accepting to is the Con argument of First Person Shoots are becoming "carbon copies", a a replica of a person or group that lacks any sort of originality or unique thought, that might lead to a market crash of games. http://www.urbandictionary.com... I believe First Person Shooters, FPS, games are becoming as diverse as they ever have been in recent years with examples from FPS as defined at http://en.wikipedia.org... "World War II Online, released in 2001, featured a persistent and "massively multiplayer environment" "Metroid Prime, released in 2002 for the Nintendo GameCube, a highly praised console first-person shooter, incorporated action adventure elements such as jumping puzzles and built on the Metroid series of 2D side-scrolling platform-adventures." "In 2003, PlanetSide allowed hundreds of players at once to compete in a persistent world and was also promoted as the "world's first massively multiplayer online first person shooter." "Later in 2007, Irrational Games' BioShock would be acclaimed by some commentators as the best game of that year for its innovation in artistry, narrative and design," "Crytek games Far Cry (2004) and Crysis (2007) as well as Ubisoft's Far Cry 2 (2008) would break new ground in terms of graphics and large, open-ended level design, whereas Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (2007), Resistance: Fall of Man (2006) and its sequel Resistance 2 (2008) presented increasingly refined linear levels and narratives, with the fast pace and linearity of the Call of Duty games bearing a resemblance to rail shooters. In 2006, GamaSutra reported the first-person shooter as one of the biggest and fastest growing video game genres in terms of revenue for publishers." Last paragraph does suggest, because it not like it was obvious enough from a true gamers perceptive, that Call of Duty games are nearly replicas of all previous generations but when compared to the progress of games such as Battlefield and expansion of the Halo series are major contenders to the diversity of the major FPS gaming market as I see now.
Ignorance of the Lord Justifies Being Sent to Eternal Damnation

The subject in question is whether or not God will send an ignorant person to Hell. My belief is no, God will not send an ignorant person to Hell. The only reason I say this is because nobody is ignorant. Most of the following verses are some that my pastor gave to me. I'd really like the verses to speak for themselves, so I won't be writing a lot. I would like to say, however, that God has addressed the issue that there are people who have not heard His Word directly, but He has made Himself evident throughout His creation - all of nature and us as human beings. Psalm 19:1-4 NIV: 1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. 2 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. 3 There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. 4 Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun, This verse is saying that everything God has touched glorifies Him. Romans 2:14-15 THE MESSAGE: 14-16When outsiders who have never heard of God's law follow it more or less by instinct, they confirm its truth by their obedience. They show that God's law is not something alien, imposed on us from without, but woven into the very fabric of our creation. There is something deep within them that echoes God's yes and no, right and wrong. Their response to God's yes and no will become public knowledge on the day God makes his final decision about every man and woman. The Message from God that I proclaim through Jesus Christ takes into account all these differences NIV: 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This verse is saying that our conscience is proof of God. We are created with a sense of right and wrong that God put into us at creation. So, according to all these verses, people are not as ignorant as my opponent claims they are. Therefore, God does send ALL unsaved people to Hell. Revelation 20:15 NIV:15If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Ignorance of the Lord Justifies Being Sent to Eternal Damnation

:) Onto the debate. Resolved: Ignorance of the Lord Justifies Being Sent to Eternal Damnation Resolutional Analysis: In order for me to win this debate, I have to find one instince in which the ignorance of believing in God, logically and righteously, results in another alternative besides being sent to Hell for eternal punishment. My opponent must justify that ALL instinces call for a person to be sent to Hell. I will let my opponent go first
Mutations are not beneficial, and therefore cannot be used as evidence for evolution.

Contrary to popular belief, mutations are very rare and in the occasion that they do happen, they are actually very harmful. Def of Mutation: "the changing of the structure of a gene, resulting in a variant form that may be transmitted to subsequent generations, caused by the alteration of single base units in DNA, or the deletion, insertion, or rearrangement of larger sections of genes or chromosomes." Look forward to debating :)
Abortion

Of course, human-rights should be respected, but it is never the case that a person has a right to make a decision with no reference to the rights and wishes of others. In this case, one might wonder about the rights of the father to have a say in the fate of the foetus. More importantly, though, pro-choice groups actively ignore the most important right – the child's right to life. What is more important than life? All other rights, including the mother's right to choice, surely stem from a prior right to life; if you have no right to any life, then how do you have a right to an autonomous one? The woman may ordinarily have a reasonable right to control her own body, but this does not confer on her the entirely separate (and insupportable) right to decide whether another human lives or dies. I don't care how you put it that is murder. If she gets raped it can go to an orphanage. What do you think is better not living or being and orphan. -Resources- 1. )Idebate 2. )My feelings
The Argument from reasonable Non-Belief (ANB)

I am not sure what I should write for my introduction... So let me express my gratitude to my opponent and the readers. Please vote fairly and explain your votes for I feel safe in saying that we both (me and my opponent) would rather lose than win unfairly. :: Reasonable arguments against Yahweh do exist :: The first error that I find in the first premise is that if Yahweh (the Christian God) exists then reasonable arguments against Yahweh most certainly exists ! In Psalm 10 David complains "Why standest thou afar off, O LORD? why hidest thou thyself in times of trouble? " and he does the same in Psalm 44 "Wherefore hidest thou thy face, and forgettest our affliction and our oppression?". In Isaiah 45, Yahweh is described as a God who hides "Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour". So in conclusion reasonable arguments against Yahweh are compatible with Yahweh. However, this does not mean that its unreasonable to believe in Yahweh. Yes, David did indeed have his doubts as I have just shown but ultimately he believed. In Conclusion: 1. There are reasonable arguments against Yahweh's existence. Which supports non-belief. 2. However, there are good reasons to believe. Which supports Christianity. 3. Therefore, for the Christian God to exist he simply has to be the more reasonable choice. 4. Now, we are back to square one. :: Belief in God (and Jesus) is not necessary for salvation :: "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus" (Romans 2:14-16) "Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS'." (Matthew 7:21-23) (I intentionally capitalized the last two words) When my opponent says "Now, quite clearly, we can only love, respect & worship that which we think exists." he forgets about a question which used to torment me. The question being "What about those who have never heard ?". 1. Since Yahweh is omnibenevolent we are justified in assuming that everybody has an equal chance of salvation. 2. There is no contradiction in the statement "X loves all Y's personality traits but X does not believe that Y exists". 3. One can be saved without ever hearing the word "Jesus" or even believing in a God.
This House believes in the right to bear arms

I will jump right in: 1. Guns are a constitutional right because they are both a symbol of power and literal power. In the early days of the United States, weapons were banned from the general public. Why? Guns are a symbol of power. If you own a weapon, you have the means for change and it is used to rise against tyrannical government. Ever since the first French Revolution and the Glorious Revolution in England, guns have been used to throw over oppressive government. If we take away guns, we take away the ability to rise against your government. To see the coming argument, guns can be used against the government, which is why I still leave out the use of automatic weapons. Normal weapons, when used en masse, can be used against the government. The majority of the population rising up against a fair government, however, is extremely unlikely and has yet to happen in history. 2. Guns are used for protection. When someone breaks into your house, the first thing you do is get a weapon and call 911. If there was no weapon in this equation, we would tell them not to call the police but the ambulance because there would not be people left to save. Taking guns out of the equation for protection in this day and age makes you more vulnerable than ever before. Having a weapon is key to survival against crime in the home. Without it, crime would spiral out of control. The police can't do anything because they can't be everywhere at once. Only the average person can protect themselves from crime. 3. Guns are to be used correctly. I make this argument, but also add this. I have a strong belief that guns should be regulated. No one with a past of crime, major potential for crime, and needs to be proficient in gun use and safety. There are too many people who don't know how to use firearms and so end up afraid of using them. This is another problem that I accept and should be fixed. Over to you Con and good luck!