BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
UJ (Union J- Con) v.s. 1D (One Direction- Pro)

Hello, Lollie, thanks for accepting. Here are some rebuttals:"one direction have a movie"Yes, you are right. They do have a movie. So does Justin Bieber. But both of these acts do it because they either want to get famous so bad or they just want attention. Union J don't do a movie, but I'm glad they didn't because I like them for the music. One of their songs, Carry You, has been on Kick-A** 'lets go crazy crazy crazy till we see the sun' I have something to point out, but you will hear it in my argument.'Their songs are so catchy my older sister claims she doesn't like one direction'So do Union J. Ok, enough of my rebuttals. Now on to my argument. OriginalityI have been reading news online about One Direction's music. There were ones about 1D ripping off songs from other bands. Best song ever was ripped off by The Who's Baba O'Riley because of the introduction, Live While We're Young was ripped off by The Clash's Should I stay or Should I Go because of the opening riff, and Midnight Memories was ripped off by Def Leppard's Pour Some Sugar On Me. Directioners would be paying attention to the music and not hear the similarities. I am a careful listener. Union J, however, don't playgarise songs. On YouTube, I look at the comments and I have seen things like 'that's Austin Mahone's song' and stuff like that, but the JCats (what UJ's fans are called. Honestly, I do not know why) know that Jason Derulo wrote the song for Union J.The fan reactionsAccording to comments on YouTube and other sites, Believers and Directioners are more you know with their fans than TWFanmily and JCats. I honestly have nothing to say about this one. Is it the members we have to worry about?I like how Union J are more grown up, which is a good quality for a good boy band. Honestly, I don't have anything to say about 1D. I really don't like Harry Styles. My Dad doesn't either, and so does Mark Wahlberg and this blogger. Mark Wahlberg wants to 'beat the pr*** out of Harry Styles (Sorry for using cuss word, but they are Mark's words, not mine. Often times, 1D are compared to Union J, which I do not like people doing. Fans compare Harry with George and other things.That is it about my arguments. The rounds will go in this order:R2: Do the same format as I didR3 & R4: Comparing songsR5: Conclusion_________________________________Sources:http://www.unrealitytv.co.uk...http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk...http://www.nowmagazine.co.uk...And 2 videoshttp://m.youtube.com... http://m.youtube.com...
UJ (Union J- Con) v.s. 1D (One Direction- Pro)

hi i am Lottie, please bare with me this is my first debate! I like union J but one direction just rule! Their songs are so catchy my older sister claims she doesn't like one direction when she singing around the house, 'lets go crazy crazy crazy till we see the sun'! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Also their movie is hilarious! They got further in the x factor than union J ever did!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 I think that one direction have more fans than union J one direction have a movie and union J don't! so all i can say is if you are a one direction supporter then you rule!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don't break the rules!

It is impossible for a debater to vote on his own debate (for obvious reasons) so it is impossible, but your task was improbable. Therefore, pro broke rules stated in round 1. Since I claimed authority over rules before pro, I most certainly can approve or disapprove of the new ones made by pro in round 3. I disapprove of all 3. Also for the language, I was thinking of the exact same thing. Now I know it isn't breaking the rules though so thank you. Rule 1: Pro must change his profile picture to my absolute favorite color. Rule 2: Pro may only talk in Filipino. Rule 3: Pro must explain with great detail (at least 7000 characters long) why Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is a horrible game compared to Halo Reach.
Don't break the rules!

If we go by your logic, your first rule breaks rule number 4 also in round 1. Quote from round 1 "and one fact sentence don't break the rules." I was a little confused more than anything by what you meant. What you said there and what you claim it is in round 2 don't match up. Rule 1: Pro may not undo my rules with additional rules. Rule 2: Pro must complete and lose a million debates before posting the next argument. Rule 3: Rules that are made must be approved by con from now on, unless they are made by con.
Don't break the rules!

This more of a game than debate. The game is simple Pro and Con can make should 3 rules per round and one fact sentence don't break the rules. Rules: No foul words No rules that make you do anything out of this site. Example do pull-ups or watch this YouTube video. No Rules banning letters No automatic win rules. Example if I forfeit I win No banning the numbers 1,2 and 3 No banning .the characters ,?"':;!\-)(*&%$#@ No banning the space button
Should government spend money on health OR DEFENCE

Still I am not too confident or sure of what your position is. I'm not arguing that the country should spend absolutely no money on defence. As one comment points out, The proposition and its arguments lack clarity. In my last argument I attempted to encourage some clarity in the next round. Unfortunately I still have some questions:1. Which country are you talking about? Where is the country? What era? 2. Are you debating that the government should spend no money on health, And all it's money on defence? 3. Are you debating that the government should not spend no money on defence, Nor spend all its money on health? I would stress the importance of you answering these questions, Or we are going to find it very difficult to debate eachother. For now, I would just say that the burden is not on me to prove anything by stats. You have not used any statistics, And my primary purpose in this debate is to undermine and counter your arguments. To directly counter what you said, I would point out that you said something may happen. If no money is spent on health, People will definitely die as a consequence. You have focused on the consequence in purely monetary terms; "Devast (? ) more than the amount spend on health". I would argue that the amount of lives saved by health spending cannot be quantified in monetary terms, And should not be directly compared to the amount of spending. If you would contest this point - how much is one life worth to you in dollars, Pounds, Or any currency you can think of? No lives are necessarily saved from defence spending. More lives will probably be lost. My statistic for that is the number of people that have died from war in human history. No lives have been lost from health spending.
Should government spend money on health OR DEFENCE

Thank you for the opportunity to take part in this debate. From the title of the debate, I am unsure of your position. I assume from your first argument that you are in favour of the state spending on defence rather than health, If it were a choice betwen the two. I would be happy to argue against that. I'll make a few rudimentary points and will hopefully get a chance to expand on them as the debate progresses. 1. In the past, I would be inclined to agree with you. Wars have rocked nations throughout history. Since World War II, However, I would argue that the use of conflict to resolve international issues has fortunately declined. Of course, This is entirely relative. I would agree that defence spending was more important than health if the nation were in the 1930's Europe, Or 100AD Mediterranean. In this era however, Which I would imagine is the setting for your proposition (please correct me if I'm wrong), The importance of defence spending has decreased significantly for most nations. Not only does the argument depend on the timeframe, But also the location. I would concede that in certain areas, Like the Middle East, Defence spending is still important. So would you agree to either of the following: we are talking about a modern Western nation or some kind of abstract nation where none of these things matter, And you would like to debate the topic on principle, Rather than circumstance? 2. You use the word "vital". This word comes from the Latin "vita", Meaning "life". Both defence and health are important for the preservation of life. At the outset, Based on principle, I would however argue that spending on health is inevitably for the purpose of peserving life. Defence budgets, However, Are often spent for ulterior motives. Such motives as conquest, Wealth, Power and hate have been countlessly followed when weapons and defence budgets are spent. For what other reasons do wars start? Perhaps you would like to specify what you mean by both defence and health spending? What purpose do they entail? What will the money actually be spent on? 3. In regards to your opening argument, Do you mean that defence is vital for preserving the nation, Or that it is vital for establishing the identity of nation?
Euthanasia should be legalized

I will start by addressing Con's main argument, being that it is the government's right to protect citizens from all danger including themselves. Any situation that would force a person to consider euthanasia (extreme physical or mental suffering) as their only viable option would already be defined as a danger to the citizen in question, both to their mental health and well-being. Euthanasia in this case is not a danger to the person, but rather the only means of release from an otherwise inescapable situation. So by Con's argument the government would be require to provide euthanasia as an option to these people to protect them from the danger that they are facing. Also those that require therapy after attempted suicide are most often people suffering from some mental problem, example; depression. As I stated in my model, those seeking euthanasia would be subjected to professional psychological tests to determine that the patient is in a fit state to make the decision for euthanasia. I'll move on to my main point, which is that it is the right of the individual, not the government, to decide how and when one should die. Already the government accepts our right to slowly kill ourselves by smoking and drinking. This is because the government understands that the we have the right to live our lives in any manner we choose, so long as it does not impact on the lives of others. The logical next step is to allow citizens to decide the time and the manner of their death. The people requesting euthanasia would take psychological tests to determine they are in a fit state of metal health and family opinions would be observed. We allow people to live their lives as they want so why shouldn't we allow them to die when they wish? There is no reason.
Euthanasia should be legalized

I will argue that euthanasia (or assisted suicide) should be legalized. My main arguments will be that it is the individual's, not the state's, right to decide whether one should die or not and that it is inhuman to prolong the suffering of those that are fatally and painfully ill by preventing them from making the choice to die quickly. I present the model. Euthanasia clinics where the patients can make the unpressured choice whether to die. The patients would be subjected to proffesional phsycological tests to determine their mental state and would be killed by an injection of pentobarbitol which is a tried and tested drug for human euthanasia. I eagerly await a challenger.
America will remain the worlds dominant superpower

I would like to begin my rebuttal with a correction. Pro has claimed that the U.S. gave China a billion dollars in financial aid in 2011. This is not true. In fact, China only received $18 million in 2011. Last year, this was down to $14 million. [2] This is less than 2% of what Pro claims. Meanwhile, the U.S. Treasury owes China $1273.5 BILLION. [3] This is equal to 8% of America’s nominal GDP, as provided by Pro. [4] Secondly, Pro makes the argument that China is still involved in military conflict against Tibet as it has troops stationed there. By this logic, the USA is at war with Germany [5], Italy [6], and Japan [7]. Also, I would not support the definition of a military operation as “Activity by a military or naval force”. Again, by this logic the U.S. Army is engaged in military operations against the UK, Germany, France, Denmark, Poland, Romania, Estonia, Croatia, Turkey, Georgia and Bosnia. [8] I fear some confusion has arisen over my GDP calculations. Pro claims that two sources I used – [9] and [10] – contradict the evidence and figures for GDP and growth which I put forward earlier. I suspect there may have been a misunderstanding here. I didn’t put forward those figures. Pro did. They were taken from his opening arguments in Round 2. I merely followed the calculations through from what he provided. There I found a discrepancy – not only with what my sources said, but also what Pro himself says. So, do my sources conflict with the figures and calculations that Pro provided? Of course they do. I leave it to you, the community, to judge Pro and my sources and to determine which is more reliable. And, finally, as for the point of dispute over India’s relationship with the British Empire, I have only this to say. I am disappointed that Pro decided not to answer my question about the method of execution of “Blowing by the gun”. Thus I conclude my rebuttals. The best of luck to Pro. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.foreignassistance.gov... [3] http://www.treasury.gov... [4] http://www.tradingeconomics.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] http://www.eur.army.mil... [9] http://thediplomat.com... [10] http://blogs.piie.com...
Only "fools" do not believe in God.

1 Chronicles 21:6 is: "Because Joab disapproved of the king's command, he did not take any census of the tribes of Levi and Benjamin." (Good news translation) https://www.biblestudytools.com... Next, on to part 2 of my response: "Note, the bible wasn't written by one writer. The bible had 40 writers. These men were under the influence of God's holy spirit." If they were influenced under the Holy Spirit, and if all of them wanted to create the perfect version of God"s word, then God could have perfectly influenced them to write the bible so it would be contradiction free. "Each bible writer may choose to follow a strict chronological order, while another may list the events according to their association with ideas." God ideally would be okay with this. However, he still would make it contradiction free. "Bible writers were allowed by God to retain their own particular style and language," Maybe. This did not mean God would allow them to express bias or if they were allowed to express bias than it would make the bible less credible, which is something God would not want. "He gave the actual number of the Israelites during the registration. It would not seem logical for him to repeat Joab's numbers." If the stats took place at different times, them so be it, nations change their armies. I see that you didn"t get to my other contradiction though. "Let's be realistic, in a book that for centuries was laboriously copied by hand and that needed to be translated into so many languages, some scribal variations crept in." Given that God is all knowing and all powerful, he would have temporarily blessed the translating ability of the translators translating the bible so his word doesn"t go out of context. "But none are of such scope and weight as to cast doubt on the inspiration and authority of the Bible as a whole." Can you clarify this? "When carefully examined through additional research , seeming contradictions can be shown to have an honest solution." Sometimes they can, sometimes they can"t. I accepted your debate to try and resolve some contradictions and maybe to confirm other contradictions. "but they merely accept this opinion that is thrust upon them by those who do not wish to believe the Bible or be governed by it." Although I like much of stereotypical Bible morality like the pro life part and the no sex until marriage part, I hope the bible is false. I hope God doesn"t exist. God killed 70,000 people in a country over something as trivial as David taking a census on how any people were in the country (https://www.biblestudytools.com...). Does this make http://www.worldometers.info... more guilty since they took a much bigger census? P.S. Also, if God is all powerful, can he create a stone so big that he can"t lift it? This is a paradox. If he can, then he is not all powerful because he can"t lift such a stone. If he can"t, then he is not all powerful because he can"t create such a stone. He therefore can"t be all powerful.
Only "fools" do not believe in God.

I appreciate the fact that you gave a specific reason why you don't believe in God. On the contrary, the bible doesn't contradict itself. It's harmonious from Genesis to Revelation. 2 Samuel 24:9 and 1Chronicles21:5 is not a contradiction. 1Chronicles 21:6-"But Levi and Benjamin counted he not among them: for the king's word was abominable to Joab". It's clear that Joab left out two tribes of Israel namely Levi and Benjamin in the counting process because he objected to the registration. 1Chronicles27:24 "Joab the son of Zeruiah began to number, but he finished not, because there fell wrath for it against Israel; neither was the number put in the account of the chronicles of king David." Also, to further the point he didn't finish counting. Note, the bible wasn't written by one writer. The bible had 40 writers. These men were under the influence of God's holy spirit. Each bible writer may choose to follow a strict chronological order, while another may list the events according to their association with ideas. Omissions would likewise be according to the writer's viewpoint and his condensation of the account.Bible writers were allowed by God to retain their own particular style and language, while He saw to it that His ideas and pertinent facts were conveyed. For example, 2Samuel was written by Prophet Nathan and Prophet Gad.Chronicles(1& 2) was written by Ezra. Prophet Nathan and Prophet Gad lived before Ezra's time. So, when Ezra was writing Chronicles(1&2)He gave the actual number of the Israelites during the registration.It would not seem logical for him to repeat Joab's numbers. Joab's numbers were not accurate. His counting excluded the Levi and Benjamin tribes. Let's be realistic, in a book that for centuries was laboriously copied by hand and that needed to be translated into so many languages , some scribal variations crept in. But none are of such scope and weight as to cast doubt on the inspiration and authority of the Bible as a whole. When carefully examined through additional research , seeming contradictions can be shown to have an honest solution. All too often, people who claim that the Bible contradicts itself have not made a thorough investigation themselves, but they merely accept this opinion that is thrust upon them by those who do not wish to believe the Bible or be governed by it.
Only "fools" do not believe in God.

This is essentially a Christain vs Atheist debate. The bible contradicts it's self. THis is why I'm an atheist. . https://docs.google.com... many unproven contradictions of the bible. It states other stuff. You will just have to scroll down to see the contradictions. Most of them are trivial but still contradictions nonetheless. To avoid playing a backwardsden, I can list just 3 of these contradictions to start off with: In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel? 800,000 2 Samuel 24:9 1,100,000 (I Chronicles 21:5) How many fighting men were found in Judah? 500,000 2 Samuel 24:9 Four hundred and seventy thousand (I Chronicles 21:5) God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?
Only "fools" do not believe in God.

The word "fool" occurs in the Bible. The Hebrew word for fool is "nābāl" meaning "stupid; wicked". The Greek word "aphone" is similar, but adds the idea of someone who is "mindless, egotistic, (practically) rash, or unbelieving and unwise". Psalms14:1,2-"The fool says in his heart,"There is no God."They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;there is no one who does good.The Lord looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God." Proverbs1:7-"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge,but fools despise wisdom and instruction." 1 Corinthians1:18"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. "
Only "fools" do not believe in God.

1)I showed you in the spreadsheet. There is some information about killing/murder, but you need to scroll right. Explaining it would use valuable characters. "God is God. No one can tell him what to do." If he made mistakes deliberately when translating the bible, then don"t be surprised when your followers go to hell for believing an incorrect bible. I"m similar to Saint Peter. I don"t like putting faith in people. 3) "Where in the bible did God punish children for the error of their parents?" The bible showed 70,000 people in Israel being killed for David"s actions and as a punishment. How would you feel if Donald Trump made a mistake and God killed a million Americans for Trump"s mistake? How would you feel if you got executed for someone else's murder even though it"s obvious your innocent? People should not get punished for the actions of others by an all knowing God. My opponent states some biblical quotes saying God does not punish children for the actions of their parents, however, I found one that arguably does. It is: Exodus 20:5-6 (also Dt 5:9) "I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments." This is God rewarding and punishing children on the basis of the actions of their parents. This could be another example of how the bible contradicts itself. "Sin has consequences. No one can presume on God's mercy. One cannot sin and then expect God to spare the consequences of the sin committed." Given that God claims to be all loving, he would allow people to commit minor sins or to provide a Jesus like figure a year or so after Adam existed so everyone, whether or not they were born after Jesus, could get salvation. Answer-"The point is the passion with which atheist defend their failed theory is concrete evidence of the emotional necessity of belief." I"m not saying that God doesn"t have rational backing, but if the bible contradicts itself, then it might be evidence of a flawed bible and therefore a flawed or false God. An example of this is his claims to be all powerful. If God is all powerful, which the bible supports, then can God create a stone so heavy that not even he can lift it? If the answer is yes, then he is not all powerful because he can"t lift such a stone. If the answer is no, then he is not all powerful because he cannot create such a stone. If he can"t lift or create such a stone, then that is one thing he cannot do.
Should abortion be illegal

Yes, as for when does life begin? At conception/fertilization. Our bodies are made of living tissue and cells not matter how great or small they may be. We all love how we can justify sending a rover to Mars looking for that spec of life in a chip of ice, yet our ability to comprehend that same size cell in one's body does not constitute the same level of understanding is beyond my ability to understand it. All matters important to society/humanity begin at protecting life.
That God is real

Truthfully the only way that i can give you compelling evidence is to give you all of the feelings i feel when i am praying or worshiping, no person can understand each and every thing in the universe, the only real evidence that i can give is all of the countless books that are not christian text that show that Jesus was real, who people believe is God, but you could argue that there could have been a Jesus but there is no evidence, there is the book of Isaiah prophesied many many years before.