BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You Don't Have to Burn in Hell, You Can Be Saved From It Now.

thanks pro, interesting resolution! To clarify a few things, I will clarify what my opponent has started. He will be arguing that PRO: You Don't Have to Burn in Hell, You Can Be Saved From It Now. and I will be arguing that: CON: You Do Have to Burn in Hell, You Can Be Saved From It Now. My opponent has stated so himself, that the main position in this debate is whether or not we deserve to burn in hell! And whether or not we can be saved from it. Since which hell hasn't been defined, I suppose my opponent has left it up to me, so we will be using the Holy Bible for our source matierials. Feel free to use which ever English translation you want. Definition of have to: Must; need to; to be required to. Indicates obligation; Must (logical conclusion)Definition of Must: be obliged to; should (expressing necessity). So, now that we've clearly defined the resolution of this debate. We have discovered that this debate is infact about whether or not we should burn in hell? Alright, So I will be arguing that we should infact all go to hell, but can be saved from it. While my opponent will be arguing that We don't deserve hell and can be saved from it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Revelation 20:13-15 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the deadthat were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done.14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.Revelation 21:8But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.” The bible clearly teaches that(metaphorically) If a man doesn't work, he doesn't deserve to eat. every single human being should go to hell Lifemeansgodisgood should 100% go to hell as it is clearly defined in the bible that every human being should. Romans 3:10 There is no one righteous, not even one;'John 3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.So, My opponent will have to argue that we don't deserve to go to hell, I look forward to his response since the bible clearly says that we all should go to hell.
You Don't Have to Burn in Hell, You Can Be Saved From It Now.

You do not have to burn in Hell. You can be sure that you are saved from it now. Are you sure you won't burn in Hell? I am sure I will not burn in Hell. If you are sure you won't burn in Hell, then you are agreeing with me that you do not have to burn in Hell and you should not be arguing the con position in this debate. The is not "Hell is real" or "Hell is immoral", those would be different debates. The Con position for this debate is "I have to burn in Hell" Upon acceptance of this challenge, Con agrees to debate from the postion directly opposite of Pro, which is "I have to burn in Hell".Is there anybody who believes they have to burn in Hell so I can try to show them why they do not have to burn in Hell and how they can be saved from it?
Guns should be banned in the united states.

1. Guns are necessary for the safety of a home to protect yourself and your property. 2. Guns serve as a weapon for self defense when ever the police fail to provide the services of protection to the general public. 3. Guns should not be banned because criminals will now be the only ones who have the guns, holding the general public's safety in danger. 4. Guns should not be banned in case of government opressing the citizens. I am pro gun.
Guns should be banned in the united states.

In conclusion: Guns are not a necessity for defense because there are non-violent, yet powerful, alternatives, such as tazers. These work just as well in defending your self, family, and property as a gun, because there is equal opportunity for attack between both the attacker and you to win. A gun does not necessitate a victory on the defenders part, it just means they have one way of defending themselves. However, this one way can also be used against the owner and his loved ones, especially children who might stumble upon it in its hiding place, making it a household hazard. A tazer would cause temporary pain, but would not kill anyone if it was turned onto a 'good guy'. Because of this major reason, guns should be banned for private use, and the alternatives put into effect immediately. On Constitutional grounds, private citizens have never been given the rights to own guns. Rather, the amendment lets a militia bare arms. This militia would have loyalty only to the state, city, or town they resided, and it is they how would go on the defensive should the government become corrupt. An unorganized, untrained, ragtag bunch of civilians armed with guns and their NRA cards would stand no chance against the full power of American military might. The militia option is not only the legal way, but also the better way if the government must be over thrown. These are my opponents' main arguments, both of which I used to determine that no private citizen need or is legally obligated to own a personal firearm. They are dangerous against the owner and his loved ones, and not protected under the constitution, no matter how you try to fudge it up. For these reasons, guns should be banned in the United States.
Guns should be banned in the united states.

Rebuttal. 1. "guns are mostly just able to be used as a scare tactic for criminals, rather than being any good for actual defense." A pencil is nothing more than just a writing utensil, but it is not going to make you fail your test right? It is all in the hands of the individual whether or not to use the gun for protection or becoming a predator. Criminals will get the guns through any other means; and now the citizen is left with less power. Yes you can try to make the arguement about tazers or self defense lessons, but the fact is that a criminal now has more power than the citizen, and the citizen should be accessible to equal power as the criminals regarding weapons matching. If a criminal can have a 9mm then a citizen should too. 2. "2) Self Defense: " i attacked this arguement in my first rebuttal with the equal power weapon example 3. "Criminals: Yes, if guns were banned, criminals would have a bit more power." ----So its okay to let the citizen be vulnerable to criminals with fire arms? That is a bit sadistic. ha. Also yeah they will still rob banks because some criminals get off or like the idea of fire arm to fire arm battles with authorities. But that doesn't mean they should be banned...that argument seems to run in circles i believe. But even if they still did attack some one with a gun, that still means that the citizen with the gun has a right to protect his or her property accordingly. 4. Government Rebuttal ---- The fact is the constitution allows for the right to gather a militia and bear arms for protection. Not only for home protection , but for the case of government that is tyrannical...people should have the right to overthrow. Listen to these quotes. "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." - Adolf Hitler. "1 man with a gun can control a hundred without 1. " -Vladmir Lenin (Do these guys ring any bells of just and orderly?) If you don't think that it is real, i am sorry to say you are a bit naive. In Conclusion, guns are only objects. The user is what determines the use of the gun. Hundreds of people have their houses broken in to, or raped or assaulted in their homes. It is their god given RIGHT to protect their homes and their families and not have the fear or anxiety of how long 911 will get the police to arrive.
Many uninsured can afford health insurance but refuse to make it a priority.

Since my opponent seems occupied, I'll burn a round and talk about why those who can afford medical insurance so often choose to go without it. Let's imagine for a minute that the government did not force hospitals to treat people who do not have insurance or the ability to pay cash. That shouldn't be too hard to imagine, since the government does not require ANYONE OTHER BUSINESSES to hand over products and services for free. The absurd notion that some customers ought to pay while others do not is what got us in this spot to begin with. I mean, what do you suppose we'd be saying about car prices if some customers had to pay to make up for theft of nearly half the the dealer's inventory? If people were no longer allowed to legally steal health care services (even with an exception for life-and-death situations), the price of treatment for the rest of us would drop dramatically. Secondly, those who can currently afford insurance but have no real incentive to make it a priority (because it's legal to steal it), would likely start making it a priority. By adding millions of participants to the existing pool of premium payers, insurance rates can be brought down even further. Unfortunately, many liberal ideas (like government-sanctioned theft) cause a mess. But in an effort to clean up the mess, liberals do not call for a reversal of the original liberal idea. Instead, they propose more bad liberal ideas (like taxpayer-sponsored health care) to solve the problem. It's a continuous loop of bad liberal ideas in response to bad liberal ideas has slowly pushed a once great nation to the brink of socialism.
Many uninsured can afford health insurance but refuse to make it a priority.

I will use your statistics, but keep in mind that "poverty" as a designation is typically used as a threshold to qualify for federal, state and local assistance. These income numbers are reported by the very people who are trying to qualify for government aid. As a result, these income figures are likely to be as accurate as those reported by someone trying to qualify for a stated-income loan. Applicants are literally trying to prove to the government they are broke. Any unreported income these applicants receive likely goes unmentioned, as it will only hurt their case. More importantly, income statistics for those classified as "poor" are no indication of their disposable incomes, since by virtue of their poverty designation, they are now receiving free housing, food stamps, free school lunches and other sources of welfare. Furthermore, poverty statistics are skewed by the millions of "poor" college students who do not choose to work more than a few hours per week because they'd rather take more units and finish school sooner. The poverty line for individuals over 18 year of age is $10,400 per year. Isn't that just about every college student you know? Now back to your family of four. Is a family of four that makes $21,200 per year but does not have to pay for housing or food still poor? Could they not use $5,000 of that $21,200 to purchase basic health insurance? If they have car payments, Direct TV, cell phones, Internet, pets, X-Boxes, etc. (like so many of my Section 8 tenants do), then the answer is yes. And if a family is not wasting a dime and still cannot afford health insurance, again, my argument does not apply to them. I believe the truly poor should receive help TEMORARILY, and only as long as they can demonstrate they are improving their situations via work, school or training. I would submit that the majority of those above the poverty can afford health insurance if they prioritize properly, and that a surprising number of those below the poverty line (especially single individuals) could do the same by reallocating their spending or (do I dare say it) finding ways to make more money. I hope together these two groups would qualify as "many." On a side note, and in my personal experience, I have had about 11 tenants whose rent has been almost entirely paid for by hard working American tax payers. Each and every one of them sought the designation of "poor," in order to receive the government housing voucher. I know for a fact that all of these families could afford to pay for health insurance if they were disciplined enough to forgo the purchase of other goodies-- goodies that were purchased with personal money freed up as a result of government handouts.
Many uninsured can afford health insurance but refuse to make it a priority.

47.5 million Americans are uninsured as of August 2008. 36 million Americans live in poverty. The federal poverty line for a family of 4 is $21, 200. That translates to $5,300 per person per year. Do you think that someone - in these times, with this economy - can live on $5,300 per year and still have disposable income to "allocate elsewhere?" Perhaps, but probably not on frivolous luxuries as Pro implies. Pro also notes that he believes that people who 'really need' government-funded healthcare (as in cannot afford it on their own) should receive it. I argue that the poverty line is so low, that those living in poverty probably do not have the means to sacrifice hundreds of dollars per month (considering a family of 4) towards healthcare. In that case, what does 'many' imply? Many times (no pun intended), this term can apply to less than one-half. However even if we use one-half as what is indicitive of 'many,' the fact remains that 75.8% -- more than 2/3 -- of the Americans who are uninsured live below the poverty line, suggesting that they do NOT, in fact, have money to spend on healthcare. Combine this fact with the reality that Pro cannot prove any of his claims (they're based on assumption, and Pro has Pro has provided no evidence), and you've got yourself a win for the Con.
Many uninsured can afford health insurance but refuse to make it a priority.

Ask a liberal why health insurance ought to be provided by the government, and they will tell you it is a necessity, and one that too many people cannot afford. I too agree that health insurance is a necessity. But if you look at how the uninsured spend their money you will see their spending habits hardly mirror their supposed convictions. I've never been uninsured, even as a dirt poor college student. Instead I sacrificed elsewhere to make my monthly health insurance payment. I realize there are people truly unable to afford health insurance, but as with those who truly cannot afford housing and food, they are the exception and not the rule. In such cases, I have no problem with government subsidized health care. But I believe that the overwhelming majority of those who claim they cannot afford health insurance, and want the government to provide it, are simply choosing to allocate their money elsewhere. To them health insurance is "a major priority," but not one worth sacrificing for. Instead, they continue to demand that the taxpayers make the sacrifice on their behalf. What nerve.
The Royal Family are an asset to the UK

1) In a true democracy every person in the nation gets one vote. The UK has a representative democracy where the people vote to have other politicians represent them in law making and law voting. In a true democracy not only would the monarchy be done away with, but so would parliament and any governing body whose politicians were elected by voters and are not voters themselves. As for the Queen, she can only propose legislation to Parliament, and the treaties she signs and wars she declares must also be ratified by Parliament. That does not give the Queen or the Monarchy any dire authority over governing the UK like you claim. 2) If the Royal Family lost power than millions of Britons would be severely demoralized because Britons love their royal family. the loss of the royal family would be a loss of Britons roots and past, not all of it but a very good part of it and you seem to have overlooked that Lots of Britons, young and old, love and support having the Royal Family. . http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk... Even if they are a tad late, the change in laws does show that the UK royal family does change over time for the better, contrary to what you had claimed before. 3) So we agree that the Royal Family is not racist and are only human, like Britons themselves. 4) Fine then lets cut the number in half, 30 million Britons to finance a royal family that costs 35 million British pounds a year, about 1.2 British pounds per Briton to finance the Royal Family. A British Pound is just less than $4 American Dollars, do you think that $4 a year for each taxpaying citizen is too much of a burden? As for the tourism/economy argument, I have shown that the Royal family does contribute to the economy and does not leave a large economic footprint when it comes down to numbers. The Royal Family costs 35 million a year but Great Britain spends about 700 BILLION pounds a year. .. . . http://en.wikipedia.org... So the Royal Family only takes up 35 / 700,000 or. .. . .005% Seems manageable to me. .. . Let me summarize this here, The Royal Family is an asset to the UK because 1) They are instrumental in foreign negotiations, politics, agreements, etc. 2) They lead the UK through difficult times 3) They make up a very marginal amount of total spending in the Uk (less than 1% of 1%. .. .)
The Royal Family are an asset to the UK

1) But surely to be a true democracy we should vote for who we want as our figurehead? Also, the Queen does have political power - she can enact legislation, sign treaties and declare war. She may also choose the Prime Minister and refuse a government's request to dissolve parliament and call an election. Some of these are quite serious responsibilities, and to have an unelected figure in charge of them is potentially harmful to democracy. http://www.guardian.co.uk... 2) Firstly, I am of the opinion that patriotism isn't a good thing (although that's a separate debate all together), but also that we have other things in our past and our present to be proud of. If the Royal Family lost power, would we all suddenly forget our country's history? Highly unlikely. Yes, a lot of people mourned when Princess Diana died and it was highly publicized (just like Bin Laden's death was highly publicized, doesn't mean people were necessarily sad about it...) but that is not a reason to keep them in power. A lot of the younger generation do not care for the Royal Family much - older generations do because it is traditional. But traditions change and we shouldn't avoid change just in case it offends people. The fact of the matter is we have never asked everyone if they want a Royal Family in the UK, let alone all the other countries mentioned, so we can never know if they value it or not. Okay, the rule has been changed about male succession but the fact it has only just changed shows that the values of the Royal Family are far behind that of the rest of the UK, where women began to gain equal rights some 40 years ago. 3) No, they are not perfect and perhaps they were just minor instances of racism but I can guarantee you if it were the Prime Minister who had done it, a lot more serious action would have been taken. You simply cannot get away with things like that in the UK nowadays. 4) The figures you have stated are inaccurate. Clearly not all 62 million UK citizens are taxpayers - under 18s and those from low income households do not pay income tax, unemployed do not pay national insurance tax etc. You state that tourism generates over 100 million dollars in the UK - but how much of this is generated from the Royal Family? We do not really know, but as I said before Royal Residences account for less than 1% of tourist revenue. Estimates for the price of the Royal wedding (Prince William and Kate) differ but one source here says the cost to the economy is about 5 billion, with a gain of 1 billion. http://www.friday-ad.co.uk... In such hard economic times, all public services are facing cuts which are extremely detrimental to the well-being of our people - largely affecting the poorest households the most - as well as our economy. Surely an easier thing to cut would be the Royal Family? 5) They may not have directly caused it but they are largely associated with it - they had a lot more power back then. The trade point was meant to say that they do not benefit it (some people claim we need the commonwealth for trade).
Biological weapons are a fallacy

1. My opponent has resorted to Hollywood for his evidence now. This should be considered the last resort of a desperate debater who has run out of steam and needs support from Tinsel Town to give his flagging debate a much needed boost. lol 2. Next, he is trying to wriggle out of the tight corner that he has been forced into, by claiming that the term biological weapon doesn't include germs. Quote - " This debate never was about germs causing disease" lol What next? lol 3.Quote - " The castle siege victims survived over 3 years" Reply - So what! The food supply only lasted for 3 years, in other words. What does this prove? Answer - Nothing! Reason - As the food supply got less and less, the quality of the food supply would have diminished. All the fresh food would have been eaten first, and then, as they had less and less food stock, they would have less and less vitamins. Thus, as you gradually reduce the vitamin quality of the food source, so disease starts to appear. 4. I have stated on previous debates that the Bubonic Plague was a result of volcanic activity in Iceland which spread volcanic ash all over Europe which destroyed the harvest for one or two years. http://globalnews.ca... 5. Quote - "The Japanese dropped some glass bottles full of disease (fleas) lol, on some villages in China which apparently killed 2,000 villagers." Reply - So, how did they monitor the effectiveness of these bombings? Deeeeeerrrrrrrrr? Answer - There was no monitoring! The Japanese just made up some nice sounding figures to justify all the expense that they went to in creating these ineffective weapons. Note - This is the only recorded incidence of biological weapons being used in World Wars I and II -Note - Its pathetic! Isn't it! No wonder Hitler didn't use biological weapons, he had more sense than those silly Japs. lol 6.Nazi Germany did not use nuclear weapons because they hadn't finished developing the technology, that's why! If the stupid Japs could create biological weapons, then why couldn't the much more advanced German technology create any? Answer - They had more sense! That's why! 7. Last, but not least. My opponents alleged 'coup de grace'. lol - The Six Legged Soldier reference. Note - Using insects has nothing to do with biological weapons for a start. Here is a review of the Six Legged Soldier book - Review - Fortunately, as the author points out, insects aren't very cooperative soldiers, and using them to deliver diseases is much easier said than done. Both science and military history buffs will learn much from Lockwood, a self-described skeptic with a sense of humor. That's completes my rebuttal of my opponents argument. I hope you all get a good laugh at my opponents pathetic attempt to justify biological weapons as a viable means of destroying an enemy.