BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We should have a civil war

Thanks for the compliment. Thanks for the concede on weapons being advanced. Your point? <. Our weapons could be so advanced that it could wipe us all out!!!!! > That's my point. Thanks for conceding. < Another thing is, if we have a civil war now, people will realize how stupid and insane war is.> Really. Look to the hundreds of examples of civil wars. Did people learn that war was stupid and insane? No. They just learned that war was another way to win. So you say that we should have a civil war to show everyone how stupid war is? Again, people will not realize that. If they did, we wouldn't have so many conflicts and the world would not be what it is today. So my opponent hasn't really made any legit arguments, so I kinda win the debate since she hasn't made any arguments to prove her side, and I have. Also, she hasn't refuted any of my points. Thanks. Here are my arguments. Note that none of them have been refuted at all. 1. A civil war would tear us apart. Our technology is so advanced today that we would destroy ourselves before anything got done. 2. We have no reason to. We don't have a huge pressing issue within our country that provides sufficient reason to go to war with ourselves. With the Civil War, it was slavery. We don't have slavery anymore. 3. It would destroy the world economy. If the United States engages in civil war, the world economy would be affected because our economy would grind to a halt as we systematically destroy ourselves. Also, even if we don't destroy ourselves, the economy (ours and the worlds) will have suffered a huge blow. 4. You have to prove it. Your burden is to prove that we should have a civil war. You have not done so. If you don't I win on default. Thank you. P.S. I am going to be away most of next week, so if I forfeit my third round I'm very sorry. It all depends on when my oppone
We should have a civil war

Let me say my friend you are very clever. I believe you are wrong. Today our weapons are very advanced but have you ever thought about this. If we wait until issues occur, then we will have had time to advance our weaponry. Our weapons could be so advanced that it could wipe us all out!!!!! Another thing is, if we have a civil war now, people will realize how stupid and insane war is. Then there will be no reason to have another. Which could spare the lives of many. Thanks
We should have a civil war

Thanks to my opponent for the debate. Analysis: I'm assuming you are talking about the United States. The topic, restated is as follows: The United States should engage in a civil war. Arguments: 1. A civil war would tear us apart. Our technology is so advanced today that we would destroy ourselves before anything got done. 2. We have no reason to. We don't have a huge pressing issue within our country that provides sufficient reason to go to war with ourselves. With the Civil War, it was slavery. We don't have slavery anymore. 3. It would destroy the world economy. If the United States engages in civil war, the world economy would be affected because our economy would grind to a halt as we systematically destroy ourselves. Also, even if we don't destroy ourselves, the economy (ours and the worlds) will have suffered a huge blow. 4. You have to prove it. Your burden is to prove that we should have a civil war. You have not done so. If you don't I win on default. Thank you
The voting age should be lowered

I believe that 16 and 17 year olds should be able to vote for many reasons. Why does hitting 18 make you responsible? Would being 17 and 11 months make you irresponsible compared to an 18 year old? Many 18 year olds are still as irresponsible as 16 year olds but why does that make the 18 year old better at choosing who should run the government or choosing to leave or to stay in the EU? Being 18 is just an age, it is what the mind is like that counts.
The voting age should be lowered

Teenage years are a time when individuals are figuring out who they are, what they want to do, and what they believe. Because of their lack of experience they are likely to be manipulated by others. At 16 and 17, teens are just getting access to the car, but they are still not trusted to do things like gamble, consume tobacco, and drink alcohol. Plus, they"re just under 10 years from being allowed to rent a vehicle in many places. It puts into question whether they are developmentally prepared to help make important decisions about the country"s future. Teens lack real world experience and do not have a good understanding of how certain decisions may affect a nation over time. High school students would be just learning about how the government functions as they received the right to participate in the election process. Additionally, teenagers tend not to pay too much attention to current events.
Atheist, are under Gods wrath, no attempts should be made to convert them.

This debate is to believers, and holds that the atheist is not to be pursued for conversion. This is based on empirical evidence of the scriptures instructions. For centuries the Christians wastes countless, hours, days weeks, months and years in attempts to convert an atheist, when multiple unbelievers, might have been saved, by the same believer had they not wasted time with an atheist. As believers know time grows short and time is of the essense, must get the word out to those who "can" be saved. It is the goal of this debate to enlighten the Christian to renew the spreading of the gospel to the seeking, and not the cursed, allowing for greater salvation to the masses. Does this mean that no sharing of the gospel is permitted to the atheist? Certainly not, however it should only come in an answer to a question of the atheist. Questions which insist upon evidence being provided should therefore be ignored completely as evidence has been readily provided by God, and God requires the atheist to First seek Him (God). Only after this will God Himself, provide the way towards salvation. Debates therefore should be limited to acceptance by those seeking a greater knowledge of God and scriptural clarification thus the requirements that no atheist may accept your debates is crucial. All other debates should be limited to believers, who have conflicts in doctrines, secondary to immaturity, False doctrine, misleading doctrines of man, Biblical illiteracy. Examples would be nontrinitarians, traditionalists, the religious and such. To long has the Religious boards been allowed to be hijacked by the Atheist. Please review the debates on http://www.debate.org... and http://www.debate.org... (For familiarization purposes only) Questions regarding the above past debates may be asked in the comments section of THIS new debate area. Rule 1. No atheist or unbeliever may accept this debate, as you have no knowledge of the subject matter. Rule 2. Only Christians may accept this particular debate, as it is Christian specific, meaning the Bible IS the required text, and no advanced knowledge of Biblical text is necessary or required for this debate as the seeking Christian shall be lead to scriptures that discuss this topic. Rule 3. No Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness may accept this debate, as they do not use the Bible! They created their own which is in direct violation of scripture. Rule 4. No cults of any kind may accept this debate. Rule 5. No Religion outside Christianity may accept this debate as they have no knowledge of the God of THE BIBLE (King James Bible - those Bibles found on the website Biblegateway.com are acceptable). Rule 6. New Testament believers only! Rule 7. 3 rounds acceptance 1st, then arguments.
Taxes Are Justifiable

If my opponent wants to argue that ONLY TAXES FOR DEFENSE forces are justifiable, he/she may do that.Justifiable: [justified] To prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable------Debate Setup-------Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: ArgumentsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Rebuttals and Closing - NO NEW ARGUMENTS THIS ROUNDThis debate is mainly if taxes beyond the need for defense are just, and I say they are, the other person would say that NO that taxes are not just. I expect an anarchist to accept this debate, but I do not care. Good Luck
Metrosexuality Is An Acceptable Lifestyle

your an idiot, that's what a debater is supposed to put when there opponent forfeits a round on them. That's me saying I extend my arguments into the the next round or "same thing I said last time" waiting for you to quit being a troll and show up to the debate YOU started and actually give a rebuttal to the case I just presented in the earlier round before you forfeited a round. you want evidence I'm saying the same thing this round because my opponent has failed to give any refutation to it for me to give any further of a case or need to counter rebuttal? That when I gave my argument it was unchallenged by you thus left to stand? copy the web address to this page and paste it into another Tab on your screen. It will lead you to this page were you will see that indeed you did not contest it by forfeiting, so it was left standing, and you will see I indeed chose to just extend those arguments into the next round. this was a declaration of intention. and if you think evidence is needed to prove that I made a declaration in this debate to extend my arguments, you've gone mad I'd normally thank you for this debate, but you have done nothing that I can thank you for.
Metrosexuality Is An Acceptable Lifestyle

Well Pro now is the time you can say "thank you marauder for taking this debate" because trust me, no one on planet earth was ever going to. This is not an issue where there are sides existing agianst it, and its not related to what you call "homophobia". No intellegent debater was going to be dumb enough to take this debate. a troll taking the debate was the most realistic thing you could have expected.Now you might be thinking "wait did Con just call himself dumb...and a troll?"Oh no, I'm not trolling I plan to take this debate seriously and I'm not dumb. See unlike other intellegent debaters on this site like myself, I am also WITTY and CREATIVE and see ridiculose ideas for debate resolutions as an optimum oportunity to practice and express that creative gland.But as per you rules I just use this first round to accapt the debate, tell you my good diabolic intentions, and to just let you know that now.....ITS ON LIKE DONKEY KONGI await my opponents opening round
Metrosexuality Is An Acceptable Lifestyle

Today's debate is about whether or not metrosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle.1. Acceptance2. Main Definitions/Presentation of Main Argument3 & 4. Rebuttals5. Resolution/Closing ArgumentHint: Definitions can be used in other rounds besides R1Rules-No semanticsNo trollingNo profanityNo vulgarityViolating any of the rules results in immediate termination of the debate.The offending party will be the loser.
Gay Marriage

First of all, I apolgize for calling your god a stupid god. I honestly can't take anybody seriously anymore when they think gay's don't have the right to marry. I had to some fights with my friends about this, and it's just crazy that so many people aren't letting this issue go away. Another reason why I left Christianity, and religion.Ok, let me explain this, there seems to be some misconception about this. Gay marriage is not a state issue. Why? Because It is protected by the 14 ammendment, due to the Equal Protection Clause, Therefore, it no longer became a state issue. This has been argued by the SCOTUS, and it's done. Case closed.I'm very sorry, but since you are trying to change the Status Quo in this debate, it is up to you to give sources, and not my job really. I only have to refute your arguments. Please, you are going to give sources, do not give it from some Christian website, give it from a scientific one. See it's hard to argue with you here, because you keep bringing god into this debate.. I don't believe in god, and alot of people don't. So what you are trying to say doesn't make any sense to me. I don't see why we should listen to a book written long ago, and expect it is the word of god. I really don't. I also don't think there is any sense is taking words out of an ancient book, and applying to our lives now, You do know how much violence was in the Old Testement right? Do you follow all of that? Why do you choose to follow the part of homosexuality? And do forgive me for that stupid god comment, It really was uncalled for. The reason why I said you were lying is, because you indeed were. Gays DO NOT harm anybody in anyway. That source you gave still didn't make any sense, and please try to explain it better if you can.Again, I already said, preventing gay's from getting married is discrimination. It's like preventing blacks from voting. It's unfair. People have different religions, and those religions will say different things. THis is why the U.S is secular. To avoid this problem. Religion has no place in the government. If you want hold those beliefs, that's fine, but you can't enforce them onto others.
Gay Marriage

Alright, lets get one thing straight. I am respectful towards you and I expect the same from you. I respect your opinions. You start off your argument with saying my percentage is off, then go on to say that "number may be true." You also say that the country "is not." Not what? Gay marriage has nothing to do with freedom of soeech or freedom of religion. Gay marriage is a separate issue. It is true that religion is used as a reason to explain why this shouldn't be allowed. The 10th amendment states that any matter not disscused by the constitution is for the states to decide. Gay marriage is in fact a state issue and the federal goverment has no power to create a law about this. I am not expecting you to believe anything I say. Quite the opposite. I realize as a human being that people are close-minded. As a christian, i seek truth. I am trying to share my knowledge of what I have learned over the years. As for my source, if you want it broken down for you, I recommend another source that you can look up yourself. Its just one source. We are already off topic of what I have been trying to debate about. I am trying to debate whether gay marriage is right. Now you say that my source is pretty crappy so than naturally you give me a source that is supposedly true and not crappy. This source talks a LOT about being good or maybe even better parents. I agree that it is their choice to adopt, and they have to think hard on this. (This is because God made it so that one woman and one man can bear children.) But, also know that most couples choose to have a baby and not by mistake. Yes, there are cases when they didnt mean to, but that is on another topic of discussion. As for your last paragraph, .... I am trying to say that God gave us a choice. And because we are flawed, we sinned. He gave us the right to choose what we really wanted. This is because we are human! We sin! Saying that a human didn't create the constitution is bogas. I don't know who you take me for. Off subject- please don't say "stupid god." This is arrogent and disrespectful. I wouldn't say that to anyone and I will not say that to anyone. When I talk to him I'll make sure to tell him to give you a call. I honestly can not take you seriously. I saw the comments and I don't understand how from everything I have said, you say that I am trying to spread "blatant lies." If this is what you get from this debate, that makes me sad. What you are understanding is not at all what I am saying. From all of this, you have (tops) given me maybe one reason why gay marriage is okay. Looking forward to your response.
Gay Marriage

First of all, your point on about 70.6% of Americans being Christians is wrong. That number may be true, but that doesn't mean the country is not. The U.S has a strict seperation between the State and Church, and it should be that way. The Federal government has the power to decide this, because this is a civil liberty issue. The states dont get to decide freedom of speech or freedom of religion. Wow, you really expect me to believe that some biased Christian website will do the trick? What he says doesn't even make sense. Clearly, the disease statistics related to a homosexual lifestyle prove that such a lifestyle is harmful not only to themselves but also to others, especially when you note that in both the U.S. and U.K. large percentages of HIV infected people don't know they are infected. This is a danger to society since it supports the spread of disease on a large scale.He doesn't even explain how that works. Why would gay people go around and infect straight people? That dfeats the purpose of being gay. I have scientific proof showing gays make good parents.http://www.livescience.com...Your last sentence is complete nonsense. Why do we elect a government then? Why do we have unalienable rights? If people don't make the rights, who does? The right free speech? The right to bear arms? No stupid god made this law, the founding fathers did. If god did make those rights, make sure to tell him to add me on Facebook.
Gay Marriage

"Its quite simple" -I tend to disagree with this because its really not. So many people are arguing about this subject. There are many different opinions and beleifs about this. 70.6% of the U.S. Population claims to be christian. So I don't see our world as secular. Our country was founded on religious/christian principles. The fact that they made a law about this is unconstitutional in itself. This is from a constitutional stand point and this is not what I am arguing. The federal government doesn't have the power to decide on this matter. Thomas Jefferson also had slaves.... On the part where you said it doesn't effect other people's lives is false. Here is some reasons it effects others lives, 1)Diseases 2)Financial Impact 3)Mental Health 4)Sexual Molestation Source: https://carm.org... I am not discriminating anyone. You don't get to decide what rights people have and neither does the rest of humanidy. If that were true, rights would be subjective and meaningless.
Gay Marriage

It's quite simple. The U.S is secular country due to it's advocation of seperation of state. What this means is that religious dogma is to have no role in the law of the country. So, if the Bible says it's wrong, it doesn't mean the law should be changed. Every religion will say something, and the U.S cannot accomodate for everybody this way. The U.S is secular and should stay that way, if it wants to preserve it's democracy and freedom. I believe all people are equal, just like Thomas Jefferson said. I see no reason to be against gay's marrying in first place, because it doesn't effect lives of other people, and gays have done nothing wrong. And finally, it's discrimination. You are denyng somebody the right to get married, because they are gay, which is not fair in anyway.
This House Will abolish streaming students into classes of differing academic aptitude.

I think the purpose my opponent elicited this debate is to prove a point. Austin Tan is not a very kind individual. In my humble opinion, his shocking degree of disrespect and his arrogance was rightly tagged with disapproval. Even though I am on the con side, I feel somewhat like a devil's advocate. Nonetheless, my opponent's forfeit cannot be ignored. My points remain un-addressed and therefore stand.
This House Will abolish streaming students into classes of differing academic aptitude.

To counter my point of contention, the opposition has cited a couple of examples in which brilliant yet egotistic individuals who refused to directly have anything to do with people of inferior academic background still gave back to society and contributed to it as a whole. However, would it be fair to say that many such people in society would do the same? Wittgenstein and Kant were but a select few, and the proposition sees that it is but a myopic slice of the large pie. Social segregation is seen to be the cause of many large-scale world problems, including but not limited to slavery, racism and ethnic cleansing. While academic discrimination is but a first-world based subset of it, it has already started to show how serious its effects can be. Such discrimination, one where, quoting the opposition, people "...aggressively prioritize personal gains/pleasures over that of the proportionally larger number of lesser-developed society," is the root of many of the problems which we have around the world now. Problems like low wages, monopolism, oppression under the guise of "free trade", and even " indirectly " poverty. Likewise, I can explain this further if necessary, but the rationale already seems sufficient. Since the opposition has set no counterpolicy and chose to remain with the status quo, I shall proceed to my next point. This time the proposition shall go on to discuss the direct effects it has on the other end of the segregation spectrum; those who live life in the social stigma heaped upon them by their peers and grow up being directly told or indirectly implied that they are "useless", or at the very best, "will never amount to much". Despite being in trade schools or its equivalent, such students have the potential to make their own impact on the world should they believe themselves to be able. Yet those youths grow up in a society that has hammered into them the fact that the only potential they have is to hopefully find a steady job in the trade they"ve been studying and live the rest of their life in relative stability. I briefly mention the success stories of current (and late) billionaires Zuckerberg, Gates and Jobs. Though their academic backgrounds were not so extreme as being in the bottom end of the spectrum " they dropped out of college " I used them since they are familiar personalities. To end this round, the proposition will summarize this point by saying that such segregation psychologically stifles the students deemed by society to be on the weaker end in terms of their abilities, who might otherwise have the potential to make it big in the world.