BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is impossible to keep philosophy out of a philosophical debate

Let us examine both your definition of philosophy in more depth and it's application to this argument. Allowing that your definition of philosophy is correct, when the term examination is used, in the context of your definition, it means to scrutinize something or to check for fitness of purpose. In the context of debate we are both individually, in thought, and via a backward/forward discourse examining a concept through discussion. Discussion is not, per se, contradictory to examination and in the context of philosophical debate is at least in part the means by which examination is made. Now because we are using primarily logical means within debate to systematically analyze our arguments and because a philosophical debate is by it's nature about philosophical matters we must use examination of our concepts in order to formulate a coherent argument. "Well, when discussing philosophical events, you are bringing in philosophical topics into the situation, but are you speaking them? No. You are quoting them." Now here I must point to a logical failing in your argument, it is not at all necessary to bring philosophical topics or indeed quotes into a philosophical debate although it may be desirable to do so. In fact philosophy by it's very nature is itself amongst "basic concepts such as truth, existence, reality, causality, and freedom" both intrinsically and extrinsically. Discussion of philosophy is therefore fundamentally a philosophical phenomena.
It is better to believe in the God of the Bible than to be an Atheist

As for rebuttals, I will forfeit my round of rebuttal, despite Pro's kind allowance for such. I would consider it unjust and would simply like to state my position. It is better to be atheistic in modern society than it is to believe in a monotheistic God. If we take the supposed stance of there truly being a God, then one must assume that judgment isn't singularly about belief. As most Christian denominations believe, good works and charitable actions are a major aspect of paradise, and according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Christians/ monotheistic believers are the largest portion of criminals within the prison system, and if we assume atheists shall face judgment based on the 1st Commandment, then a large proportion of monotheistic disciples must be judged in the regards of criminal Commandments as well (thou shall not covet, thou shall not steal. ) Therefore, putting importance only on judgment in the afterlife, I believe monotheistic followers and atheists are to face equal judgment in acknowledgment of a God. The only way this would not be true is to assert that atheists do not possess a personal moral set and values, which is a definite logical fallacy. Sources: . https://fivethirtyeight.com... (references Federal Bureau of Prisons statistic as well as other various studies. )
It is better to believe in the God of the Bible than to be an Atheist

My position is as follows: If I believe in God and it turns out God did not exist then I don't have to face any accountability for my disbelief. If I am right that the Christian God does exist then eternal awards awaits me when I die and still do not have to face any accountability and do not have to face any judgment. If the atheist is right and there is no God and no afterlife then he or she will not have to face any accountability for not believing in God. Should the atheist be wrong he/she will be held accountable and will have to face judgment accordingly. It is therefore my resolution that that it is better to believe in the Christian God than not to believe in Him. Rebuttals and arguments can be done from the first round. Thanks.
Civil unions are NOT the shizz!!!

"The statements I made were obviously anti- civil unions and i am 100% for same sex marriage. However, that is irrelevant." Eh . . . actually it is very relevant. Without knowing that you were 100% for same sex marriage, I could have interpreted your standpoint in so many different ways. Now that I know you are saying that you hate Civil Unions because they just don't feel the same as same sex marriage. Honestly, I'm going to quit debating this topic. First of all, you never stated your point clearly. You need to do this in a debate and provide sources and evidence to why you believe this. That is the way you tell someone you believe something (theory, then metaphorical drama associated with the theory and then reason to why you believe your theory is correct). Secondly, your grammar . . . well, I have no better way to put this . . . it sucks. Someone who wants to express their point should at least be able to type and spell properly. This isn't myspace. This is a site for intelligent people to come together and prove to others why they believe what they believe in argument format. Thirdly, to all who read this, I am sorry for wasting your time. Many of the points he brought up were hard to understand and did not make sense to me. I did not interpret his arguments correctly because of how many different arguments there could be. And honestly, I don't debate to win. I debate so someone can hear my point of view. Debating challenges my beliefs and my standpoint. If I cannot defend my view, then I find a way to do so. If I cannot defend my view at all, then there are weaknesses in my belief system. Debating only makes me stronger as it does other people. Well, honestly, this debate was a bad debate. Good luck with your future debates policydebate (I refuse to acknowledge you are a God of any sort).
Civil unions are NOT the shizz!!!

- Actually, they can live wherever they want to. They just cannot marry yet. + That is the entire point of the statement!!! I'm saying that their marriage will only be recognized in a few places, therefore they can only live in a few places for them to have the benefits of marriage. This limits freedoms unnecessarily. Marriage is age old and therefore recognized universally. - And actually, Washington, California, Connecticut, Vermont, Maine, and New Jersey recognize Civil Unions. + THAT IS MY ENTIRE POINT!!! ONLY 6 STATES RECOGNIZE CIVIL UNIONS!!! THAT LEAVES 44 STATES LEFT THAT GAYS CANNOT LIVE IN WITH THEIR MARITAL STATUS RECOGNIZED!!! AND NO OTHER NATIONS!!! - And in Illinois, New York, Maryland, and Rhode Island, the topic of Civil Unions is sometimes allowed and sometimes not (it is being debated). + EXACTLY!!! - But in Massachusetts it is legal for same sex couples to marry. In Belgium, Canada, South Africa, the Netherlands, and Spain you can have same sex marriage. In Aruba and Israel, they recognize same sex marriages from other countries. + MY ENTIRE POINT IS THAT CIVIL UNIONS ARE RECOGNIZED IN FEW STATES!!! MARRIAGE AND CIVIL UNIONS ARE NOT THE SAME THING!!! YOU MISS THE ENTIRE POINT!!! A CIVIL UNION WILL NOT BE RECOGNIZED IN A STATE WHERE MARRIAGE IS RECOGNIZED!!! THIS DOES NOT HELP YOUR CASE!!! - In some regions of Mexico, Australia, Brazil, and Argentina they allow Civil Unions. They also allow Civil Unions in Andorra, Luxembourg, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany and many other nations in the world to have Civil Unions. So no, most states and nations do not not allow Civil Unions. A lot do, but not most. + This does not help your case at all. You are saying that 6 states, 4 third world regions, 4 European nations allow civil unions. As oppose to marriage which is recognized universally. - Honestly, I took this debate from this standpoint. You do not agree with Civil Unions. You don't think they should be there at all. You don't think marriage between same sex couples should happen either. Because since Civil Unions are not good, they should be abolished. And since there is no same sex marriage, they shouldn't be allowed to marry either. I honestly think you did not make your point clear enough in the debate. + The statements I made were obviously anti- civil unions and i am 100% for same sex marriage. However, that is irrelevant. YOU NEVER RESPONDED TO MY POINTS OF CIVIL UNIONS DONT CARRY THE SAME SOCIAL WEIGHT AS MARRIAGES AND THAT GOVERNMENT BENEFITS BELONG TO MARRIAGE SO THAT MUST STAY IN PLACE. I WIN THIS DEBATE BECAUSE YOU NEVER EVEN TRIED TO ANSWER 2 OF MY ARGUMENTS AND ANSWERED THE ONLY ARGUMENT THAT YOU DID RESPOND TO INCREDIBLY INSUFFIENTLY.
Civil unions are NOT the shizz!!!

"not recognized by most states or nations so gays cannot travel or live elsewhere" Actually, they can live wherever they want to. They just cannot marry yet. This doesn't really prove that Civil Unions are not good. And actually, Washington, California, Connecticut, Vermont, Maine, and New Jersey recognize Civil Unions. And in Illinois, New York, Maryland, and Rhode Island, the topic of Civil Unions is sometimes allowed and sometimes not (it is being debated). Oregon and New York have a domestic partnership available, which is close to a Civil Union, that they are allowed to have. So +- 12 States can have Civil Unions. But in Massachusetts it is legal for same sex couples to marry. In Belgium, Canada, South Africa, the Netherlands, and Spain you can have same sex marriage. In Aruba and Israel, they recognize same sex marriages from other countries. In some regions of Mexico, Australia, Brazil, and Argentina they allow Civil Unions. They also allow Civil Unions in Andorra, Luxembourg, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany and many other nations in the world to have Civil Unions. So no, most states and nations do not not allow Civil Unions. A lot do, but not most. "Marriage is not a religious institution: Atheists and Satanists get married everyday" First of all define religion. Also, I do not think that they get married everyday, but a lot do get married. I also agree that marriage is not a religious institution. Honestly, I took this debate from this standpoint. You do not agree with Civil Unions. You don't think they should be there at all. You don't think marriage between same sex couples should happen either. Because since Civil Unions are not good, they should be abolished. And since there is no same sex marriage, they shouldn't be allowed to marry either. I honestly think you did not make your point clear enough in the debate. Carry on.
Civil unions are NOT the shizz!!!

I don't understand what you are arguing. Are you arguing that their shouldn't be Civil Unions? You like Civil Unions (or don't like [shizz is translated to sh*t which in this argument can be used in both good and bad ways])? Are you arguing that CUs are not cool? Are you arguin that CUs do not deserve the same rights as normal marraiges? Also, don't provide confusing points, make it neat and in a format that everyone else can understand. Thank you.
The USFG should ban the death penalty in all 50 states.

With that I will review the arguments made and show you why I've won todays debate.1. Detterance- This Contention was backed with hard evidence and graphs by myself. My opponent did not even refute most of the evidence that I provided which is a huge problem in this debate. This shows that there is key detterance and his only refutation was that Drug lords still commit crimes, but he failed to refute my refutation to that of cost analysis which is what we must do in this debate to see if the Death Penalty should be banned in all 50 States of which my opponent has accepted the full BOP.2. Innocents- Out of this entirety I pre-argued that there will be mistakes no matter what we do. This is simple fact. Just like there's always a likelihood you could get struck by lightening or attacked by a shark, but it doesn't ALWAYS happen to people. As I've been showing in previous rounds that this rate is under 1% as the statistic given was that of 0.28% and it's dropping due to improvements. This part was dropped by my opponent so we can see that I win this contention as well.3. Costs- My opponent completely ignored the math provided last round. Yes it may cost more to exicute a prisoner than 1 year in prison, but on average we can see that the cost to keep someone in prison for life costs more than to give someone a lethal injection. $5 million to keep someone in prison for life (50 years) vs. $3 million for a death penalty, you do the math, which is cheaper?4. Supreme Court- This was my opponent's main argument and as I've shown the Supreme Court's ruling and the Justice's opinion's on the case. My opponent's only refuation was that the Supreme Court support slavery and segregation, but here's the thing. Segregation was over turned. Just as the Supreme Court Ban on the death Penalty was banned in the Supreme Court case Gregg V. Georgia. My opponent also wishes to argue our Founding Principles, but if he disagrees with the branch of government made by our founding fathers to interperate the Constitution then how could he argue something violates it or it's principles? Due to this you can see that I also win this point. Due to me winning each point there is no other valid option, but for a vote for Con allowing the Death Penalty to stay legal.
The USFG should ban the death penalty in all 50 states.

Summary of this debate: Thanks again to Lannan13, I have great respect for him and everything he contributes to this site. Con"s Case: 1: Deterrence: using the same argumentation con does, we can see that life in prison can act as a deterrence. Due to both a life sentence and the death penalty being deterrents the justification for the death penalty as a deterrent is severely mitigated. 2: Innocents: Con concedes an important truth. "I do acknowledge that there has been some botched death penalties" 3: Cost: the death penalty costs the tax payer more than life in prison. This supports my case. My case: I argued that the primary function of government is to secure the rights of its citizens. Life being listed as unalienable in the Declaration of Independence being the quintessential right. Thus we see that the Federal Government allowing capital punishment is a violation of unalienable rights and is contrary to the function of government. Due to these inherent harms the Federal Government should ban the death penalty. Con responds by saying "Personally I believe that the Supreme Court is best when it comes to decoding the Constitution as it is their job." This is an interesting response as I did not argue that the death penalty was unconstitutional. Rather I argued that it is contrary to our founding principles and the function of government. However, if con cites the supreme court as an example of moral authority it is worth noting that the Supreme Court has upheld institutions that are morally questionable. i.e. slavery. Separate but equal etc" It is also worth noting that opinions of the court have changed overtime. Thus, citing the supreme court"s ruling does nothing to negate my argument. Thus my argument stands. The U.S.F.G. should ban the death penalty in a 50 States. Vote Pro! Thanks for reading.
The USFG should ban the death penalty in all 50 states.

Rebuttals Contention 1: Deterrence Con says that “They have found that there is a direct correlation between the increasing penalties to that of decreasing crime.” Personally I find it hard to picture a drug lord deterred by the death penalty as it would seem more likely he die from his chosen life than our Justice system. That stated the death penalty may be deterrence. However, con does not show that the impact of deterrence is higher than other forms of justice, like say life in prison. So using the same argumentation con does, we can see that life in prison can act as a deterrence. Due to both a life sentence and the death penalty being deterrents the justification for the death penalty as a deterrent is severely mitigated. Contention 2: Innocents Con concedes an important truth. “I do acknowledge that there has been some botched death penalties”At least 18 people have been wrongly executed. 18 people have had their unalienable right to life taken from them unjustly. As con put it “mistakes will happen.” What cost is my opponent willing to pay for so called justice that he is willing to endorse the unjust action of the state taking peoples lives. Con then brings another important factor into this debate. Cost… Consider: “the enhanced cost of trying a death penalty case is at least $1.25 million more than trying a comparable murder case resulting in a sentence of life in prison without parole.”(1) Here is an additional source if the first was not satisfactory (2) As it turns out, the death penalty costs the tax payer more than life in prison.Conclusion of rebuttal:As deterrence is not only applicable to the death penalty, it does not pull much support for the death penalty. My opponent acknowledges innocent lives taken due to the application of the death penalty. Also, we see that the death penalty costs the tax payer more than life in prison. To accept my opponents case is to accept that innocent lives will be lost and more money will be spent. The case for the death penalty is negated. (1) http://deathpenalty.org... (2) http://www.forbes.com...
The USFG should ban the death penalty in all 50 states.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men”As quoted above, The general consensus in the U.S. is that the primary function of government is to secure people’s rights. Some of which are unalienable. In the U.S. life is considered an unalienable right. This is evident by the quote above taken from the Declaration of Independence.How is it that the State can function as a securer of the individual right to life while simultaneously taking a person’s life? Simply put, it cannot. The State does have the right to remove those who violate other’s rights from society. However, the State has no legitimate cause to take away one’s unalienable right to life. This is true even for the worst individuals imaginable. For the State to take one’s life via capital punishment is for the State to function contrary to its primary purpose. Life as a right should remain unalienable.Thus we see that the Federal Government allowing capital punishment is a violation of unalienable rights and is contrary to the function of government. Due to these inherent harms the Federal Government should ban the death penalty.
The USFG should ban the death penalty in all 50 states.

Resolve: The USFG should ban the death penalty in all 50 states. a) definitions Death Penalty: To be sentenced and put to death by the state. aka capital punishment b) burden analysis: As pro, I accept the burden of proof to affirm the resolution 4 rounds/72 hours/ 4,000 characters Thanks Lannan13 for this debate.
Homework Should Be Banned

Home work is great help to students especially like me. it helps to cover all your failing grades. It helps in many ways like; It improves child's thinking and memory. Home work encourage children to use time wisely. It teaches a child to work independently.It allow parents to communicate about what he/she learning in school and lots other reason. Your comparing other country to ours, this kids in United States don't go out usually, We have different cultures and here, many children wants to stay home to play with technologies instead of going out. Countries has difference you should not compare their way of living and ours.
Homework Should Be Banned

Most students hate homework with a passion and agree it should be banned. Here are some good resons to consider why: 1. Students spend up to 6 hours or more working at school. When they come home, they have to homework so in reality they dont really leave school. It is important that children should have a social life and not just stress. If its a matter of catching up on work because you dont get it, then its ok, but teachers give homework every day. 2. In Finland they dont have homework and their percentage rates are far higher than that in the U.S or Cananda. In Canada, the high school graduation rate is around 78 per cent and in America it comes in at around 75 per cent. Now, consider the fact that the graduation rate for students in Finland comes in at 93 per cent " showing a massive comparison between the countries. Finland also happens to have the highest rate in Europe for students going to college (two out of three). So, how does it so happen that Finland can claim such a high percentage of graduating students " it is all purely down to the fact that they don"t have homework and dont have as many standarized tests. Students sit in school all day and barely get any exercise. When they get home, they have to sit some more and do their homework. By the time they are done, it is time to get ready for bed. Where is the time for activity? Where is the time for exercise? The fact is that there is no time. During the school week and sometimes on the weekends, the student is busy doing work and school and homework at home. They don"t have time to play sports and if they do then they are rushing through their homework anyways.
That Poppy is a better than Melanie Martinez

I disagree, strongly. Melanie Martinez has an incredible voice and has developed her aesthetic in ways other then creepy click bait. Melanie uses these curse words to express herself and be someone who everyone can relate, and also swearing has nothing to do with talent whatsoever. And if The Voice is so 'trashy' then why does it have 1.93 million viewers, plus how else are you supposed to get famous, unless you have a producer friend like Poppy. Silly, why is it a bad thing to sing about boys
That Poppy is a better than Melanie Martinez

Poppy is more than an amazing singer,she is an amazing entertainer.She does not use cursewords and has an amazing back story that youshould look at.whileMelanie got famous from aTVshow and uses trashy launguage and all she sings about is boys.I know you may be thinking thatPoppy was jast a replacement ofMarsargo but she is better thanMars,even though they are both just pawns of titanicsinclare.Melanie also has a great personality and amazing storys to tell in her songs but i think she exagerates
The U.S. should fund the Kurds instead of the Iraqi's in the fight against ISIS

My opponent has forfeited the round once again. The Kurds are a very oppressed people. They are very nationalistic, which always proves to be bad. If we arm the Kurds and give them a proper weaponry then they can turn against us. Here is a quick history of the Kurds and it won't help to give them weapons. http://www.aljazeera.com... Both the Kurds and ISIS are militant Islamic groups. Helping any of them will prove to be bad in the future.
The U.S. should fund the Kurds instead of the Iraqi's in the fight against ISIS

The opponent forfeited Round 3. I will restate my main argument. We funded the terrorist groups that we are fighting now. We cannot make the same mistakes with the Kurds. A little while ago, we delivered 2300 humvees to the rebels. One bullet went off and they went running. We literally ended up giving all those advanced armored vehicles to ISIS.