BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hockey should be America's past time.

I believe Hockey should be America's past time for many reasons. 1: It takes a significant amount of balance and coordinating to skate on ice while controlling a stick and puck and also be run into. 2: Hockey is the most physical sport besides sports like boxing. It gives the viewer entertainment because fighting seems to be a big joy to watch for citizens o the U.S.A. Particularly men. 3: Hockey is, in my opinion, the most enjoyable sport.
Abortion

Yes, abortion IS that definition. However, it is a fetus, it is not yet a baby. Will it continue on to become a human being? Yes. But this is not killing a human being. It is getting rid of the fetus BEFORE it turns into a human being fully. If someone is against this simply because it is getting rid of something BEFORE it turns into a human being, this said person should also be against other things such as masturbation. This is the same thing, it kills sperm cells. Sperm cells which would become a human being. So are these the same things? Or is one okay and the other not? Also, while I will agree that abortion because someone does not use protection is wrong, in the cases that said protection fails or this person is raped.. should abortion not be an option? Sure you could put the child up for adoption, but will the child not face more emotion damage due to their own parents giving them away? If the woman does NOT want the child, why not let her make that decision? No one else should choose except for the woman carrying the child. It is her body, let her do with it as she wants.
Abortion

I expect that a slightly more productive debate might be had in 24 hours/round instead of only three. I am taking the side of Con. I assume that Burden of Proof is shared, with slight emphasis towards Pro for instigation and being Pro. I define "abortion" as meaning "The expulsion or removal from the womb of a developing embryo or fetus, spec. (Med. ) in the period before it is capable of independent survival, occurring as a result of a deliberate act (more fully induced abortion); the early or premature termination of pregnancy with loss of the fetus; an instance of this. ", a slightly modified version of the definition found in the Oxford English Dictionary. I'm not trying to play semantics here, I think this is the only logical definition of the word anyway.
Bullying in school and why I'm for it

Thanks to my opponent for presenting me with an absolutely fantastic argument I see your logic (even if I disagree with it) and will attempt the best response that I can. Well My first argument will tackle your first argument Mental Development now I will admit that has a huge impact on your decision making. This is illustrated time and time again by teenagers making impulsive or brash decisions and i can understand this I've done it and I see my friends do it constantly. However I think that a measure of a persons willpower is the ability to think through all of the hormones being pumped into your body. Another point I'd like to make about it is EVERYONE thinks of suicide at some point in life its natural curiosity we as humans feel the need dull pain or sadness. That does not mean however that all people who feel intense pain or sorrow should need to kill themselves. A great quote for this WHOLE debate would be "pressure causes some men to break and others to break records" I say all this in no way meaning offense to my opponent. At the same time saying anything other than what I've said would be betraying my opinions which is something I will never do. I also believe that our mental age and physical age can wilder differ take for example an American child and a child from a 3rd world country. Now I believe that the child from a third world country would be alot older mentally due to having actual life-threatening issues to think about. Instead of clothing or cars or one of our other petty concerns. Now I will readily admit that very few people could see from the viewpoint of someone who's committed suicide due to bullying (for obvious reasons). Now another thing I'd like to say is that my opponents counterargument is completely wrong. People are subjugated everyday not only in America but worldwide not only in OUR time but since the dawn of man. What about Egypt and the Jews? Jesus and the Romans? not a big religious person? Civil Rights Movement? The Holocaust? Need a more recent example? Most Americans and Muslims! Saddam Hussein and the Kurds. I could literally make up an entire page of examples and those were just big examples, what about subjugation by an abusive parent or spouse! Or maybe just cruelty from a random stranger. Also this is not a nihilistic argument because nihilism is basically the advocation of anarchy or destruction. I support neither of these, I do not state anywhere in my argument that I support the absence of law nor the praise of destruction. I never said I don't think bullies should get away with their transgressions and I think the "bully" should be punished. My disagreement is more with the receivers reaction to the bullying. Well I've made my argument the best that I can I'm truly sorry if I've made any misspelling or grammatical errors. Also thank you very much for an extremely challenging debate.
Bullying in school and why I'm for it

Ok this is my first debate so I might as well start off strong. I am debating on the healthy effects of bullying in school. Not many people that I know of share my opinion around where I live so I want to know what the Internet thinks. Well I'll start the actual debate now... I constantly find myself assaulted In the media by the image of a cruel person/group of people bullying someone who is different. this is almost always inevitably followed by the tragic story of a suicide as the media and family try to gather sympathy until a more interesting case comes up. This. Disgusts. Me. Deeply and personally see I was bullied when I was younger I know for a fact that it's very easy for seemingly "innocent" children to turn lord of the flies at a moments notice. No I don't like bullies most of them have crippling personality traits that ensure they'll sink like a stone when real life comes around. I'm short they are (mostly) bad people. However even tho I dislike them on a personal level I see the necessity of what they do. The bullies of a school prepare you for real life as much or more than a teacher or a friend. Simply because in the real world not everyone will be nice, not everyone will be or want to be your friend, and you'll always have to deal with people you don't get along with in a workplace. Bullies teach you how to deal with situations like that but some people are extremely offended by what I say for example if a teenager kills themselves because of bullying. Honestly I hold a great contempt for those people not because they didn't rebel but because they weren't even good enough to bear with it. Sickening... Truly I think that bullying related suicides are the perfect example of modern human natural selection, all those petty names bullies can call you or hurtful things bullies can say or even noses they can bloody. Those PALE in comparison to what the real world can do. School bullies can't throw you out of your house or shut off your electricity can they? In all likelihood if the young fools who ended their lives because of rude names or gestures wouldn't last a week with the stress of rent or mortgage. Well I've presented my opener I'm still a little unsure how the site works but I implore you to comment or debate with me on this subject. Thank you for reading my arguement irregardless of whether you decide to debate or comment.
Bullying in school and why I'm for it

"The only things I'll add in is the point my opponent made about the scientific law... "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" this is a fact in dealing with physical things. But I don't think it would neccasarily apply to this situation. I propose that bullies push "victims" to the edge but only the victim chooses to jump off (metaphorically speaking)." I'll use this last round to cover this point. My opponent admits that bullies push their victims to the edge. That's not true, they don't just push them to the edge and stop; the push them all the way over. A bully doesn't stop picking on their victim once they've felt the victim has "had enough" they keep pushing, and picking. The moment that a child has taken so much grief that they decided death would be better; that is not a personal conviction, or an inward desire that drive them to pull the trigger, swallow the pills, or jump off the building. It is the image, the thought, the memory of the one who drove them to that point which kills them. In the end even if we want to have solely logical argument, even if we want to look at this issue in a larger scope than just in school; there is absolutely no excuse for bullying. There is never a reason or a justification for on person violating the security of person of another; Whether physically, emotionally, or mentally, bullying kills. I won't bother asking for a vote in this round, the warrant for the Con has already been show throughout the previous rounds. Instead I will simply offer my mournful condolences at my opponent's steadfast affirmation of such a terrible thing.
Bullying in school and why I'm for it

Another great round from my opponent! I refuse to offer proof of my arguments. The only thing I will offer as a reason you should believe my side is any logic you can gather from reading my opinions. If you get a new look on an age old topic from either me or my opponent then I'll consider this a successful debate. My opinions on this subject have not been changed however my opponent has presented an extremely viable stance on the subject and I applaud him for it. I digress. .. As for the actual debate I'm with my opponent on not rehashing old arguments. The only things I'll add in is the point my opponent made about the scientific law. .. "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" this is a fact in dealing with physical things. But I don't think it would neccasarily apply to this situation. I propose that bullies push "victims" to the edge but only the victim chooses to jump off (metaphorically speaking). As for the argument about a lack of compassion I would agree that I have on I feel no pity for these so called "victims" they simply didn't make the cut. Many people would regard this as inhuman like my opponent. Unfortunately I'm human my opponent is human and the argument of a loss of humanity is not applicable here or anywhere. Hitler was just as human as ghandi and evil is just as human as good.
Bullying in school and why I'm for it

I will be brief here, and spare every-one the useless re-iteration of the round thus far. I could reimply re-phrase all of my prior arguments in this round, as every single one of them still stands and extends across as an applicable argument. My opponent himself said that he wasn't going to attempt to ask for a Pro vote, and openly admitted that his arguments where simply his personal opinions. This means that they are simply claims without warrant and are not even viable arguments. This means that the entirety of my opponent's last round is also unviable as he has done the exact same thing. Made claims without any kind of warrant to back them up. Finally before I conclude this round I would like to respond to one of my opponent's claims made as of last round. "As for bullying taking lives. .. bullies don't kill them. The bullies dont load the gun or tie the noose that person the second they slip on that rope or stick that barrel to their head Thats deliberate. It's their own choice you could right down any number of facts, figures, or studies that say I'm wrong. But after all Is done which one pulls that trigger the bully or the victim? " Simply put; for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. To say that the bullies are not to blame for this tradgedy, is to assume that the end reaction had no prior action. It astutely violates basic scientific law, and turns a blind eye to the abuse of children all over the world. When we do not recognize the problem we can never solve the problem. We fall into nihlistic apathy, and simply try and make the claim that only the strongest deserve to survive. At that point we reject compassion, and all that defines our humanity. For that very reason there can be no other vote in this debate except for the Con.
Debate Challenge: The US should mandate yearly driving tests for seniors above the age of 65.

M ppnnt cnnt dd frthr rls. N cndtns wr prvdd n rnd 1 mkng n rls xcpt ths n rnd 1 rlvnt. n th tttmpt t prvd frthr rls, m ppnnt vltd svrl rls. ncdntll, th chrctr whch m ppnnt rfrncd s "nt vwl" s n fct smtms vwl. Wll nl s whn ts nt vwl f y cnnt rd m rgmnts, sck t. Nw n tpc. sm ld pplz dnt vn wnt t drv. Wht f thy r blnd? Wh rqr thm t hv drvng tsts? Thts wst f thr tm. Thy rnt vn gng t drv nwy s t wld b stpd t mk t mndtry t hv drvng tsts. Mb f th rsltn wr t rqr mrl tht ld pplz wh d nt sbmt t drvng tsts ls lcns, tht wld b k, bt tht s nt th rsltn, mndtr mns y cnt gt t jst b nt drvng.
Debate Challenge: The US should mandate yearly driving tests for seniors above the age of 65.

Note: The letter "Y" does NOT count as a vowel, therefore is usable by both parties. Rule 6: Y is allowed. Rule 7: The opponents FULL arguments made, must be submitted in the comments section so the opponent knows what to refute. Rule 8: Source listing will NOT be penalized if vowels are used. ================================================ Frst, wld lk t thnk my ppnnt, Rgnr Rhl, fr ccptng ths dbt s t s vry hrd t fllw. Cntntn 1: ldr drvrs r mr dngrs T hs bn prvn tht ldr drvrs cs mr ccdnts b ldng nvrsts. (1) Cntntn 2: Mr ncdnts nvlvng ldr ctzns thn yng drvrs ccrdng t rprts cndctd by th ntd Stts DT, thr r mr ccdnts csd by ppl vr 65 thn ny thr dmgrphc. (2) s w cn s, ldr ppl r mr f thrt n th rd thn ny thr grp, thrfr th US shld mndt yrly drvng tsts. Srcs: (1)-www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=62181 (2)-www.usatoday.com/.../2007-05-02-older-drivers-usat1a_N.htm Thnk y.
Debate Challenge: The US should mandate yearly driving tests for seniors above the age of 65.

This debate is a debate challenge meaning a list of rules must be followed in order for there to be a legitimate win. You must debate the topic, The US should mandate yearly driving tests for seniors above the age of 65, with abiding by the following: 1) No vowels may be used in your arguements. 2) No using the word and. 3) Arguments must be less than 1,000 characters. 4) No debating will start until round 2. Voting: S&G: Abidement of rules.
I claim the existence of God

Rebuttals:Con states: that I have given no proof to my claim that all objects must come from a single creator. In the universe we see that all objects come from other objects. I need no other proof. Science even states these principles as laws. The laws of conservation of mass and energy. Only something that was above these laws could break them. This force that can break these natural laws is called God. It does not matter if there are many or if their is few. They/it acts as a single collective body that monotheistic religions call God.Con states: that "matter can be made from energy". I completely agree with him. E=mc^2 confirms this, and I am in no position to challenge this.Con states: that "The "single object" my opponent is referring to is not "god", but the singularity that existed before the Big Bang."The singularity is in essence God. It is the supreme originator from which the universe was created. Con attempts to distance the term singularity from the term God, but they are the same. Either the singularity is God, or the singularity is the product of God, which shows intelligent design. Con states:Energy always existed in the singularity.Con has not proved anything by saying this. He has attempted to avoid the question by simply saying that the energy always existed. Energy had to arise from somewhere, and that originator is God. Con states: The Universe shows complexity, but that doesn't mean there's a omniscient creator behind it.Natural laws such as gravity and motion can cause matter to interact and become more complex.Evolution brings about complex organism from less complex organisms.The universe does have an omniscient creator behind it, because otherwise the universe would be a statistical improbability. The singularity (GOD) has endowed the natural world with the laws called gravity and motion through the intelligent design of the singularity and the resulting creation of the universe. I also agree with Con when he says that organisms evolve from less complex organisms to more complex organisms. The universe has the opposite trend. The singularity was a point of absolute complexity that contained the blueprints for the structure of the entire universe. The current universe is headed towards infinite expansion and ultimate death. Therefore this trend would prove that the universe is moving from complexity to simplicity. That original complexity was God.Con states: Since my opponent has the burden of proof, he must now prove God exists, even though his existence would be useless, due to it being unnecessary for him to "create" anything. One of the definitions of God has been "the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe".Con's statement that God would have no necessity to create anything would led one to believe that he knows the will of God. This is ridiculous and will therefore be ignored. Also, I have already proved the existence of God through the natural signs present in the universe, and proved by modern science.
I claim the existence of God

My Opponent claims, without evidence, that "All objects in the universe must be created from other objects. Therefore all objects must be created from a single object (God)" "Objects" are made from matter. Matter can be made from energy and energy can be made from matter. The "single object" my opponent is referring to is not "god", but the singularity that existed before the Big Bang. My opponent also states, "Only God was in existence before the advent of time could exist." If fact the singularity was in existence. The singularity was the source of all that exists, not God. My opponent claims, "If God is all powerful, and he definitely exists, then it would be wise for all people to attempt to worship him." The word is IF. But IF doesn't prove there is a God. Evidence: 1. The universe exists. Agreed 2. No matter can be created or destroyed, yet it has come into existence. Matter came from energy. http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov... 3. No energy can be created or destroyed, yet it has come into existence. Energy always existed in the singularity. 4. The vast majority of humans have believed in a deity, on philosophical grounds, for millennia. That a logical fallacy known as "an appeal to the majority (ad Populem)". It doesn't prove there is a God. It only proves many people believed in a God. 5. Quantum physics shows the complexity of a universe created by an omniscient creator. That is a hasty generalization. The Universe shows complexity, but that doesn't mean there's a omniscient creator behind it. Natural laws such as gravity and motion can cause matter to interact and become more complex. Evolution brings about complex organism from less complex organisms. Since everything in the Universe can be explained to exist without a God, it is possible that God does not exist. Since my opponent has the burden of proof, he must now prove God exists, even though his existence would be useless, due to it being unnecessary for him to "create" anything. One of the definitions of God has been "the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe". The only other definition that can now fit is "the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions." It's true that many people worship what they believe to be a God, but no evidence exists that such a God really does exists as an object.
I claim the existence of God

Since Con has not provided a definition of the word God, I shall provide one. I also take the BOP. God: A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. Basic Premises: 1. All objects in the universe must be created from other objects. Therefore all objects must be created from a single object (God), otherwise nothing would exist. If no God existed then all objects must have either existed before time, or all objects were created from nothing. The statement that a object could be created outside time is false, in that everything exists only in a universe where time exists. Also, an object cannot spring from nothing. Scientists call this principle CONSERVATION OF MASS. Only God was in existence before the advent of time could exist. Therefore, an entity outside of time was necessary in order to create the universe. 2. God does not have to be a directly involved creator. In this way the religion of Deism, with firm philosophical background, can also prove the existence of God. The idea that God had done everything in the Bible, Koran etc, is not provable, and will accordingly be ignored. 3.God, does not have to create a perfect universe. He may be omniscient and all powerful, but that does not mean that God created a perfect universe. He is God, so he would make any universe that he so desired. 4. All faiths on Earth therefore logically worship God. If God is all powerful, and he definitely exists, then it would be wise for all people to attempt to worship him. Evidence: 1. The universe exists. 2. No matter can be created or destroyed, yet it has come into existence. 3. No energy can be created or destroyed, yet it has come into existence. 4. The vast majority of humans have believed in a deity, on philosophical grounds, for millennia. 5. Quantum physics shows the complexity of a universe created by an omniscient creator.
The Kalam Argument is a sound argument for the existence of God

The debate is as it is set out in the title, where the Kalam being that promoted by W.L.Craig, roughly:Everything that begins has a causeThe Universe has a beginningTherefore the universe has a causeThe cause is God.God is defined as the deity of Abrahamic properties (i.e. properties of, or similar to, the Abrahamic God, such as powerful, intelligent, creator, etc.).A sound "argument" would be one which rationally leads us to conclude a cause similar to God. This does not include the life of God, or the bible's accuracy, or the historicity of any event, but simply whether this argument accurately acts as a 'clue' that points towards God.