BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religion should not be taken out of schools

There are several reasons why we should NOT teach religion in Public Schools. The First: It is public the other people from other Religions pay there taxes too. 2: There is no time for Religion in school. If you think about it which do you think is more important for a child to learn to use in life Religion/ math, social studies, Language arts , or yes Science (Which in my state only teaches physics and chemistry.) 3. You won't change their minds all you will do is piss the other people off. No I do not believe in teaching Religion in school, but yes I do believe in God and I AM a CHRISTIAN.
Religion should not be taken out of schools

DefinitionsReligion - : (1) an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods (2) The Belief in a God or group of Gods (3) an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or groupSchool - Any institution at which instruction is given in a particular discipline or multiple disciplines. Rounds will proceed as followsMe(1) Rules(2) Opening Arguments(3) Rebuttals, rebuilding points, closing statementsAdversary(1) Opening Arguments(2) Rebuttals, rebuilding points, closing statements(3) Shall type "No round as agreed upon"Rules(1) Failure to type "No round as agreed upon" shall result in a full 7 point loss of points due to adversary having an additional round.(2) Votes shall be accompanied with a valid and proper RFD(3) Forfeiture or a round and or multiple rounds will result in the loss of a conduct and could result in a full 7 point drop at the discretion of judges. (4) 10k Words
Live birth abortion should stay illegal.

Every human being has rights, even if they cannot voice their wants or needs themselves. A baby in the womb IS a human being at conception, no matter how you spin it. Just because the baby is "a part" of the mother does not mean the mother should kill her baby. Technically, the baby is a part of the mother, but the baby itself is a unique human being all it's own -- why should the mother be able to kill her baby since it has no way to defend his or herself? If a woman were to "accidentally" get pregnant, she would be a tad unintelligent, first of all, for not using protection and being on actual birth control -- using abortion as birth control is sick. (In the case of rape, this is a tiny bit different, but less than 1% of abortions are due to rape -- also, just because the babies dad is a rapist does not mean the baby shouldn't have a chance at life.) Once you are already pregnant, there is no "birth control" that you can take because the baby is already alive. Killing it wont solve all your problems -- over all, it will create them. Women everywhere who have gone through with abortions that made sense to them when they were having it done feel shame and sadness and depression afterwards. The thought of that innocent baby dying because they were selfish haunts a ton of women for the rest of their lives. My opponent states that "These babies were not supposed to live as they were being aborted, so they have no rights as a human and are not subject to being taken care of". When someone is a murderer, do we take away their rights and punish them to death without having a trial first? No. These citizens, even guilty, retain their civil rights. A baby in the womb IS a human, as I have already stated multiple times. Let me give another example -- if a cancer patient is told he is supposed to die, should we just kill him and get it over with? After all, this person is not supposed to live so are they no longer "subject to being taken care of"? Should we just take the life support and the chemotherapy away from them and let them die, because they aren't supposed to live?
Live birth abortion should stay illegal.

Yes, but the baby is still not alive, it is still part of the mother's body and therefore, has no rights. Yes, then can be born, but then they are alive and no longer part of the mother. An abortion at this time is still okay as the baby is still apart of the mother. As I've said, the baby is part of the woman's body and so she decides whether or not to have it. Women have the right to not have their children and if they accidently get pregnant, they should not be stuck with the baby. Some things may go wrong with an abortion, as any operation can. These babies were not supposed to live as they were being aborted, so they have no rights as a human and are not subject to being taken care of.
Live birth abortion should stay illegal.

Until a baby is born naturally, it is not truly alive. Live birth abortion is just another type of abortion and doesn't differ from the main point of abortion: it is the mother's choice to have the baby or abort it. Since the baby is not alive and is a part of the mother, she has the right to make the choices of life. Making live birth abortion illegal will go against the important case of Roe V. Wade and would go against a woman's right to choose. The baby is not born, is not a citizen and therefore, has no rights. It is the mother's decision, no matter how far along into the pregnancy it is.
Live birth abortion should stay illegal.

First, I must say that I do not under any circumstances promote abortion. I think that it is twisted and sick to murder an unborn child who has no say in whether or not they get the chance to enjoy life. However, this debate concerns those times when the choice to abort is not carried out fully or correctly, causing the pregnancy not to be terminated. If the baby is born, let the child live. It would not be impossible to find alternate solutions to ending this life that has already begun if the choice is not to keep the child. I look forward to hearing from someone who has a different take on this particular subject.
It is impossible for God to know everything (assuming God exists)

If God is all knowing and all powerful, he would be able to change our perspective on what the "truth" is. It all boils down to the reality of it all. We are talking about a God who (in my opinion) hasn't shown he exists, so the chance of this happening is impossible. To say an all knowing being does not know the answer to a question, you have to ask him, and he has to admit he does not know.Semantics aside, this is what you have to do in order to "prove" that it is impossible for God to know everything. You need to give proof that he does not know the answer to something. Your argument is the same as someone defending the idea that a God even exists; "I don't know the answer, therefore God did it." You're saying "I don't know what God would say, and I don't think it's possible, therefore it is impossible," without anything to back your claim up with other than "I think this is impossible." I don't even really know any other arguments - to say "God is not all knowing because it is impossible for us (as humans) to understand how he could possibly answer this question" does not prove or mean anything. He is all knowing. No exceptions. He would find a way to answer that question.Thanks for the debate, it made me think about a lot.
It is impossible for God to know everything (assuming God exists)

"I would consider it more of a "non-question;" it has no logical answer that we are aware of" This is false, it has a logical answer that is possible to be correctly answered by someone who is not asked the question. Another way the question could be phrased would be "if I was to ask God this question, would he answer this question with false?" It is possible for someone who is not God to answer this question correctly but it is not possible for God to answer the question correctly. The question has a correct answer that a person could answer correctly or incorrectly, but it is impossible for God to answer it correctly. "Because God hasn't shown that he knows the answer doesn't mean he doesn't. I'm not going to tell you what 1+1 is, does that mean I don't know the answer?" Look at how I defined "knowing if a statement is true" in the first round: "Knowing if a statement is true means that you are be able to correctly respond with either true or false when asked if that statement is true." As I have defined "knowing if a statement is true" then not being able to give an answer means you don"t know it. ""False" does not mean it is a wrong answer, as your question cannot have a wrong answer. "False" does not mean 100% incorrect, as "true" does not mean 100% correct. You know who decides that? God." False means "not according with truth or fact; incorrect."[1] True means "in accordance with fact or reality."[2] 1 + 1 = 2 is a true statement regardless of whether or not God decides it is true. God can"t make something true by stating it is true. [1] http://lmgtfy.com... [2] http://lmgtfy.com...
It is impossible for God to know everything (assuming God exists)

You're implying the only possible answer to that question is yes or no. It is not a yes or no question, as much as you would like to think it is. I would consider it more of a "non-question;" it has no logical answer that we are aware of. But if we can't comprehend that question, who's saying a God can't? You're asserting the idea that because we don't know how to properly answer it, nothing does. To say someone who is literally all-knowing does not know the answer to a question because we don't is absurd. Because God hasn't shown that he knows the answer doesn't mean he doesn't. I'm not going to tell you what 1+1 is, does that mean I don't know the answer?Also, I can answer that question. To do so would have to ignore the positive and negative in reality, and focus on the neutral. To say there is only positive and negative is denying the laws of reality, as what makes things positive and negative is our own mind (I'm feeling a lot like Aerogant here, sorry.) I can simply say "My answer to this question is false." Therefore, it is true that my answer to this question is false. "False" does not mean it is a wrong answer, as your question cannot have a wrong answer. "False" does not mean 100% incorrect, as "true" does not mean 100% correct. You know who decides that? God.Someone who is all knowing can easily answer that question. Because we don't know the exact answer does not mean it is impossible to come to.My answer could very well be correct in the eyes of a God; therefore, it is correct, and it is answerable.Whether you want to say my answer is correct or not is not up to you to decide, it is up to an all-knowing, infinitely knowledgeable being. You are asserting the notion that a God does not know this answer without any reason other than you don't know the answer.
It is impossible for God to know everything (assuming God exists)

If I was to ask God "Is it true that you will answer this question with false?" and he said true, he would be wrong since it is false that he answered the question with false. But if he answered the question with false he would also be wrong since it would be true that he answered the question with false. So it is impossible for God to answer this correctly no matter if he answers with true or false. Therefor it is impossible for God to know if he would answer the question with false since he can"t answer it correctly, thus it is impossible for God to know everything since there is something he doesn't know, even if the Bible says otherwise. Also it doesn't matter what God we are talking about because no matter what he can't know everything, but if you want to be referring to the christian God then we will.
It is impossible for God to know everything (assuming God exists)

Sure. I would say BoP relies on both of us, as you're asserting God is not all knowing, while I assert he is.I will assume we are talking about the Christian God, from the Christian Bible, and if not, please explain which God you are referring to (if one that is named) and give a rebuttal or argument in your round, as there are only three rounds. And assuming we are talking about the Christian God, the BoP will be taken from the Christian Bible.I wish I could put quotes around the P in BoP. Job 37:16Do you know the balancings of the clouds,the wondrous works of him who is perfect in knowledgePerfect in knowledge Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord and mighty in power;his understanding has no limit. His understanding has no limit 1 Samuel 2:3 Talk no more so very proudly,let not arrogance come from your mouth;for the LORD is a God of knowledge,and by him actions are weighed. for the LORD is a God of knowledge 1 John 3:19-20 By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him; for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything. and he knows everythingThese phrases blatantly say God is all knowing. It is possible, as that's exactly what God is. You will need to prove he is not all knowing, preferably using verses from the Christian Bible.I'm looking forward to a good debate!
Is there a place for Christianity in Todays World

In today's society full of religious pluralism and reeling on the effects of postmodernists moral relativity, we ask is there a place for Christianity in today's world? I hold that the Christian worldview provides the most fulfilling life here on this planet. More importantly it allows for the forgiveness of sin and provides hope not only now but for eternity. If other religions eliminate the self or conclude there is no soul or it is not eternal, what hope does that provide for man's longing as an eternal being. I would love to hear back on this issue and have a an enriching exchange on the matter. Thanks
Gambling casino should be allowed in the USA.

Thank you for Accepting, First let me say that in no way did I say that gambling was bad. Gambling can lead to things that are bad, spending grocery money, violence, depression, ect… It can be compared to alcohol, the drink itself is not bad, but it can make people do things that are bad. The reason I think that gambling casinos should be illegal is because it does more harm for society than good. Casinos specialize in making people addicted to their games. This makes many people spend money that they can not afford to spend. Many people go into debt by playing the casinos, with debt comes depression, and sometimes it can even split a family. Also many fights start at casinos, for example, my grandfather was shot walking out of a casino because someone thought he cheated. I am not using this as a sob story, just an example Secondly, my opponent claims that almost everything we do is a gamble. That is true, but look at these fact: Odds of choking to death: 1 in 97,000 Odds of dying in an air (or space) accident: 1 in 392,000 Odds of getting killed somehow while walking around outside: 1 in 49,000 Odds of losing at a slot machine 262,143 of 262,144. If you noticed, there is a much higher risk of losing money than there is danger. Lastly, Concerning business and liberty, one could also say that it is taking away their right to have a meth house. That is all that needs to be said on that matter. In your next argument, please explain all the benefits of the casinos Sources: (1). http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com... (2). http://tech.yahoo.com... (3). http://dictionary.reference.com... (4). http://www.insidebayarea.com...
Gambling casino should be allowed in the USA.

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate. I'd like to begin my round by pointing out that gambling is not inherently bad. Almost everything is a gamble: Driving to school or work is a gamble - You could lose your life on the way there. Eating food is a gamble - You could choke and die. Going sky diving is a gamble - No need to point out the obvious risks there. I could continue on with the examples, but I think the point is clear. Gambling is not inherently bad; it is a part of our everyday lives. Almost everything we do risks a negative result. So, why would my opponent assert that gambling casinos are bad? As I've already pointed out, almost everything we do in life is a gamble. In some situations, people wish to gamble their own property (money) with others for fun or sport. Well if gambling is not inherently bad, and if casinos are just the places where people gamble their own property, then I fail to see why they should be prohibited. For that reason alone, I can end my round right here - especially since the instigator failed to post a first round argument. I welcome the opportunity for my opponent to try and convince us that casinos should be illegal. He'd have to argue for the restriction of business and liberty, as well as against state financial incentives amongst other illogical and immoral arguments. I turn this debate over to Con, for now, and look forward to an interesting discussion. Good luck!
Resolve - The United States should ban all assault wapons.

To begin, please let the record show that my opponent has contradicted his opening argument in saying that guns have found a place in society. Also, I would like to see the source where you found that 90% of assault weapons are being smuggled from America to Mexico. This is in fact is false and according to the FBI"s international crime statistics, in nearly all cases of weapons smuggling to Mexico, Colombia was where all the weapons were traced back to. Mexico"s southern border defense is a joke and if you don"t believe me, check the amount of funding that goes into it. Smuggling weapons into Mexico from South America is as easy as stealing candy from a baby. The US on the other hand targets those smuggling weapons in and out of the border. Secondly, about your hunting argument, I never made an argument for hunting because in many cases hunting with assault weapons is already illegal. To say that hunting is purely for sport is also false when you consider that there is a high market demand for foods like deer, dove, and antelope, which are only acquired by hunting. You must also consider Alaska, where people; US citizens, still hunt for survival. Anyways, many assault weapons are already banned in the case of hunting so I have no idea where you are going with that argument. Finally, I believe that the murder of Native Americans was justified for the following reason; if Native Americans had the weapons that white folks had, they would have killed us the way we killed them. They did plenty of damage with bows and arrows, just imagine if they had Winchesters! The reason it turned out the way it did was natural selection; the white people were more advanced and had more advanced technology. Also, there are plenty of people who have needed weapons to defend themselves, so think of others before yourself. To conclude, consider this; Mexico drug gangs finally topple the Mexican government (which they aren"t far from), with the help of their South American allies they decide to come to the US. Now civilians need a way of self-defense, and there is one kind of advanced weapons available to almost all: the assault rifle. I bet the your second amendment right sounds pretty damn good now. If you think that scenario is too far fetched, just do a little research.
Resolve - The United States should ban all assault wapons.

Assault weapons have found a place in society, from a monetary standpoint. Don't get it twisted, guns are big business in America. We only need to look at our neighbors to the south(Mexico), where assault rifles are banned, but overwhelmingly contribute to countless murders and kidnappings. If they are banned, then where are they getting these weapons? 90% of assault weapons are smuggled from the United States. Also, there is obviously no argument to be made for hunting with assault rifles. I think as humans we definitely have the advantage over the animal kingdom. No one hunts to feed their families anymore, hunting is purely for sport. Assault rifles would cross that line between sport and just flat out cruelty. As for the second ammendment, which was written over 300 years ago to arm militias, can be reassessed. White people used this "right" to kill untold numbers of native Americans and animals. Self defense is just silly to me. Why? Well, I ll close with this last question. Ask yourself, have I ever needed a gun to defend myself? I can answer that, it's no. There's a huge difference between needing and wanting. People want weapons because they empower them.
Crime and mental health are linked.

There is a vast range of mental health issues that can affect a person, In many different ways. One in four people are said to experience mental health problems at some point, But 25% of the population haven"t killed someone or committed a violent crime. Also 15% of the Australian population regularly take drugs, Yet 15% of the population aren"t in prison. Falling back on "crazy" as an excuse for acts of violence isn"t just inaccurate, It is dangerous. It creates a stigma against mental health that is not justified as the vast majority of people with mental illness are not criminal. It is detrimental to the entire mental health community, And it is a copout. Crime isn"t about "crazy people. " at all. Because crazy people don"t commit crimes, Criminals do, And we need start calling a spade a spade. Maybe a violent offender does have mental health issues in their past. But it"s like saying they have brown hair. Or owned a Mazda. Or ate pork. It may be true, But it doesn"t mean it"s a factor, Or directly cause their behaviour. A criminal is a criminal and this is not linked to their mental health.
Crime and mental health are linked.

I strongly believe that crime is associated with mental illness because children are peer pressured and exposed to a range of social media platforms. Majority of criminals face mental illness and commit crime because of their mental health. Mental illness is sometimes called a "mental disorder this includes bipolar disorder, Drug-induced psychosis, Personality disorder, Depression, Anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. Studies have found that mental health problems are much more common in prisoners than in the general population. As much as 9 out of 10 prisoners report some kind of mental health problem. There are commonly reported symptoms in prisoners of sleep problems and worrying.
Crime and mental health are linked.

While it's true that there are criminals who struggle with mental illness, It's wrong to generalised and say that crime and mental illness are linked. A study done by Swanson found the share of overall violence explained by serious mental illness was between 3% and 5. 3%, With a midpoint estimate of about 4%. Therefore, The other overwhelming 96% crimes are non metal health related. Furthermore, This study also found that people with severe mental illnesses are over 10 times more likely to be victims of a violent crime than the general population. People with mental health concerns are more likely to be a victim of violence than a perpetrator. In addition to this, The study didn"t find any predictable patterns linking criminal conduct and mental illness symptoms over time. Two-thirds of the offenders who had committed crimes directly related to their mental illness symptoms also had committed unrelated crimes for other reasons, Such as poverty, Unemployment, Homelessness and substance abuse.
Existence of God

One can arrive, Through reason, At the conclusion that a higher being, Whom we shall call God, Exists. One of the most hotly debated topics of debate is how the world came into existence. Those who are against the existence of God refuse to address the causation of existence, Including how creatures and the universe were created. In our lives, We know that nothing can be moved without first being moved by another thing. If we touch something, We transfer energy that allows it to move. Similarly, If we look at creation as a whole, In order for the planets to be orbiting around the sun, Something must have caused them to move. The "Big Bang" is the term used by scientists for the moment the world was created. Even if the big bang was an explosion, That explosion would have been caused by something else. Thus, It follows that at some point before the creation of the universe, Something existed which did not have a beginning of its own - that is outside of time itself. This something is the being that we will call God.