BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Liberals have more compassion than conservatives.

Liberals are barbaric and bully small business owners. Liberals, hate the guy who wants his family to live a comfortable lifestyle. Liberals claim to help the poor and those that struggle by creating government programs such as universal healthcare and food stamps at the expense of small business owners. small businesses can hardly balance their checkbooks and meet their families basic needs because of the consistent and annoying taxes they have to pay. Liberals claim to help the worker by raising minimum wage. Well, I can tell you that worker will not feel helped when he is layed off because the business can no longer afford to pay the increased wages and salaries. Plus, a minimum wage job is only temporary. Do you know anyone who is about to retire who spent their 40 year career flipping burgers at McDonalds for minimum wage? If you do, then that person does not want a higher paying job bad enough to work hard and go the extra mile to get promoted. Also, if there is someone out there that tries to raise a family on minimum wage then there is something seriously psychologically wrong with that person and needs help. Liberals demonize corporations like wal-mart, making them seem like slimy monsters with three heads and horns when in fact they are people as Mitt Romney stated. Wal-Mart alone employs 1.4 Million Americans, giving them a means to support themselves and their families while helping the overall economy grow and flourish, making a large contribution to society. And that is just one corporation. Then liberals do the same thing to the big banks which actually fund those corporations, helping to create jobs and causing the economy to grow and expand. So, liberals are actually demonizing every American worker in a sense. Also, when referring to abortion, the mother chose to engage in a physical activity where a possible consequence is pregnancy and if the mother became pregnant, well then she must now face the consequences. A baby's heart starts beating 18 days after conception, but sometimes stops beating after the baby is brutally and barbarically murdered and mutilated before being thrown away as a result of a procedure liberals favor. Where is the compassion in that? It is not fair to the baby, that baby that was murdered could have gone on to make a significant contribution to society someday but now can't. And yes, liberals do favor contraceptives, as do the majority of conservatives like myself, because we don't want to murder babies.
Liberals have more compassion than conservatives.

My opponent has decided to close his/her argument by repeating the statement: "Every time that liberals want to help the poor and disabled, conservatives repeat "not my wallet" ad neuseoumn." which my opponent made before and which I addressed in Round 2 and 3. I would like to close my argument by restating my main notion that there there really is not much proof that "Liberals have more compassion than conservatives". My opponent raised several compelling points by arguing a moral standpoint by making claims such us: Conservatives don't want to help the poor, Conservatives are racist and homophobic, and Conservatives support war. However, my opponent did not provide much support for these statements and simply ignored requests that I made for my opponent to disclose the evidence which he/she has supporting these claims. In most cases that my opponent used to articulate his/her argument, I was able to show that it can be very well argued in the other direction and what you see as not showing compassion may seem to someone else as showing compassion from a different point of view. Also the direct implications of some conservative policies may not show as much compassion as the direct consequences of some liberal policies may show, but the indirect side affects such as low unemployment and flourishing economy with successful businesses shows much more compassion because the overall population of society benefits from this result in the long term including the poor, middle class, and wealthy. My opponent also tried to argue that conservatives always start wars for no reasons however I was able to point out several significant liberal US presidents who supported war. I thus hereby conclude my argument and fully endorse all statements and content which I posted throughout the duration of this debate. I urge everyone to vote for con for better conduct, compelling arguments, and well supported objective sources. I would like to thank my opponent for giving me the opportunity of allowing me to participate in a debate with him/her. It was a great experience and I enjoyed the interesting discussion we had very much. Thank you to all the spectators for your time and consideration, I hope you had just as much pleasure following the debate as I did participating in it.
Permitting university students to carry handguns on campus would reduce campus violence.

Attacks such as the one at Virginia Tech in 2007 would have ended more quickly, or even been thwarted, had Cho's fellow students been armed with and trained to handle handguns. If a prospective gunman (or woman) knew beforehand that a large portion of the population they are considering attacking is armed, it reasons to believe that they might reconsider their anticipated actions. Most university students are old enough to carry and should be permitted to do so. http://opencarry.com...
The Human Soul Likely Doesn't Exist.

I have chosen Peili for this debate.The Human Soul Likely Doesn't ExistDefinitions:Human Soul: the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought. (It's essentially the Cartesian conception of the soul as I feel that is the most well defined notion.)Likely: Probable as far as one knows or can tell.Doesn't Exist: Does not have objective reality or being.Debate format is the typical Lincoln-Douglas format.R1: AcceptanceR2: My opening arguments followed by Con's opening arguments (No rebuttals by Con)R3: Rebuttals to opening argumentsR4: Defense of your original arguments.Rules and Other Debate Information:BOP is shared. Con most show it is more likely that a soul exists and I must show it is more likely it doesn't. No forfeits. No insults. No semantics. Follow the format. 72 Hours to Post Argument. 10,000 Characters Max.1 month voting period. 7 point voting system. Open Voting
The Human Soul Likely Doesn't Exist.

While I think that Pro is being overly strict with the guidelines for debate, I will honor his approach. This round is for defense of my original argument, which I did (apparently incorrectly) in round three. There is no need to restate that defense in detail. I will close with a simple and plain summation: Chemical reactions in the brain are not a sufficient explanation for the existence of free will. Whether we are compatibilists or incompatibilists, our own experiences are sufficient evidence of our ability to make a choice. Even if we do not fully understand our own choices or thought processes, we know enough to understand that we do make choices. This evidence contradicts a purely materialistic worldview and strongly suggests that the human soul most likely does exist. Thanks for the debate.
The Human Soul Likely Doesn't Exist.

My argument could be summed up like: 1). If people are capable of making a genuine choice then this ability would best be explained by the existence of a soul. 2). People are able to make genuine choices. Therefore, 3). The human soul most likely exists. It seems clear that if both premises are true then the conclusion is true. So let us look at each premise. The first premise is that human choice is best explain by the soul, a non-physical entity. If the soul does not exist then actions of the brain are entirely electrochemical reactions.* Electrochemical reactions can do many things. They can increase the production of certain chemicals. They can send messages to the muscles and nerves. They can react to various stimuli. What they cannot do is make a choice. Chemical reactions will be consistent based on the available chemicals and stimuli. Chemicals cannot choose to react a different way. If a choice is made then it must be made by something non-chemical and non-physical. That something is what we are calling a soul. The second premise is that is that people are able to make choices. I will say that we cannot prove this absolutely. It is possible choice is an illusion. However, based on the evidence it is most likely true that people can make choices. The evidence for this is straightforward and simple. You, the reader, are making a choice right now. You are choosing to read this. You can continue to make choices by reading the rest of the debate or by ceasing to read after this sentence. We each have the experience of making choices. Without strong evidence to the contrary we should assume that our experiences are accurate. Again, this is not absolute proof. We know that we have the appearance of choice. What is it that they say about appearances? Sometimes they can be deceiving, but most of the time what you see is what you get. What we see is people making choices, and their ability to make choices is best explained by the existence of a soul. Therefore, the human soul most likely exists.
bullying

Hi there i will assume this is not sarcasm but correct me if i am wrong. Firstly your definition of the word bullying might need some context and definition. I would like to know what you take the word bullying to mean as it has become like the word 'rape' has in our current culture where it means anything from touching a woman by accident to the real thing. As for your sentiment of getting teachers fired I would like to pose to you that teachers are ordinary people and would like to ask how exactly you expect them to help? Kids at school age at least are often not mature enough to know better and grow up in time. Now i am not defending bullying but i think that your definition and context are a little loose so might i ask specfically what you are talking about? Many people in this current day seem to think stating an opinion on something is tantamount to bullying or harassment. Do you really want to throw children in jail or punish them because they might have said a nasty word to an individual? I think that is a little harsh. I look forward to your elaboration and hope that i can respond better to it.
bullying

Bullies should be criminally punished , there is no reason why they should get away with this. It is about time that our government should pass serious laws to hold this kind of behavior as a crime and punishable. And if the school system is aware of such bullying and do not do anything about this, then the school officials should be fired and fined. Teachers are not only responsible in educating our kids but they are also responsible that these kids are in a safe environment when attending school. I even dare to say that even the parents of the bullies should be held accountable for their kids behavior when it comes to bullying. It totally frustrates me that bullying still occurs in school and in the cybernet. This has to come to an end now!!!!!!
Resolved: Palestine Should Become Independent From Israel

The 1948 Arab-Israeli War is just the historical evidence the Israelis need to show that the Palestinians will not respect their security needs. It is further evidence that Palestine cannot behave as a Nation should on the international stage. The land grab by the Israelis is just the spoils of war, an defensive war I might add. The inequality of arable land is something that the Palestinians should have considered before attacking Israel, it's called practical Karma. The amount of Palestinian refugees is also irrelevant. The Palestinians should look inward and accept personal responsibility for the actions and their plight. That being said this debate is not about how well of Palestine is and the question's only relevance points to annexation by Israel. They have shown that they are not an accountable or responsible state. The Right of Return point is a good one however I would not expect any nation to open itself up to security risks for a people religiously bent on genocide. There is no distinct national Palestinian language or culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Historically the term Palestinian included the Jews. Most of the Arab population immigrated within the last century so when you say " Hundreds of generations" you are factually incorrect. Your remaining arguments are all war crime or moral ones witch detract from the purpose of the debate. The evidence points toward Palestine not being a legitimate language. It is just a Radical Muslim propaganda tool to stir up hate. Your welcome. Sources https://history.state.gov... http://www.science.co.il...
Pascal's Wager is Infallible

Thank you for accepting. Now, The only argument that I've known against Pascal's Wager is reverse Ad Populus and "Dumb Christians use it, so it's fallible". The other argument i've seen is "It's just as probable that Atheits will go to heaven". But, if you think about it, it isn't. The Bible, believe it or not, Is proof of Holy activity thousands of years ago- or at least a hint to it. This makes it more probable that a God and/or Gods exist and will send Theists or Deists to Heaven, and Atheists to hell. Second, It's makes more sense to send someone to Hell for disobeying or not believing than Vice Versa. So please, provide your sid of the argument and tell me why you think Pascal's Wager is Fallible.
Pascal's Wager is Infallible

Now, I only have a few rules for this Debate.#1- Only an Atheist can accept the CON side.#2- No mocking or Appeal from Ridicule. (AKA don't bring the spaghetti monster here)#3- No arguments from Ignorance#4- No appeal to the stone#5- Do not make arguments too long, at maximum they should be able to fit on one computer screen. (Do not use font size to minimize argument size, either) #6- Don't be a Grammar Nazi#7- Do not resort to vulgar language or insults. Do not try to use word tricks to your advantage.If you forfeit, you are instantly disqualified. The first round will only be for acceptance and stating your position. The last round will be for Concluding your argument and clarifying everything to the voters. Thank you for reading.
Pascal's Wager is Infallible

Well, what we have seen is that Pro wanted to defend something he did not actually read or understand using many fallacies and telling me that if I can't accept his fairy tales, I deserve to be tortured and I must think I am god. Pascal's wager is a dead and well rebutted argument. I prefer the Thor rebuttal which I used here to demonstrate that it is a useless apologetic because the wager really just tells you to bet on whichever faith has the best outcome. I want to address Pro's last post where he accepted that the wager is flawed, but still thinks it favors theism. It does not, and I can very easily use the wager to "prove" that you should be an atheist. If I modify the Thor rebuttal to say that Thor hates gullibility and cowardice, and he will only accept people into his kingdom who never let such things rule their minds, then you are now forced to conclude that the best stance is atheism, so you would be forced to try to be an atheist. This seems like the best wager to make since an intelligent god would be far more impressed by intellectually honest people than by people who try to force themselves to believe ridiculous nonsense out of fear. By the way, Pro seemed to completely miss my points about belief. Belief is the state of having been convinced. You do not choose to believe, you are either convinced or you are not convinced. As to rule violations, I only violated one rule, Pro's silly "fit on the screen" rule. Well, it was a ridiculous rule, and besides half of that space was just quoting Pro to add context to my comments. Con has repeatedly thrown ad hominem at me and used appeal to the populus arguments. True, that is not appeal to ignorance, but it is very similar in spirit. He also accused me of going off topic when all I did was respond to anything he put out there. He also accused me of having a god complex. I am not the one claiming to have special knowledge or a magic thing or claiming that my opponent deserves to burn forever.
Should prostitution be legalized in all states

Problem with StrippingMost people in America work and working hours would prevent you from getting a quicky from the local prostitute in the same way that it prevents people from heading to the strip club over their lunch hour. This time frame argument is ridiculous. Technically you could go to a strip joint anytime you wanted, a gentlemen's club in my area serves breakfast so your argument is completely erroneous. Your talk about 'self-employment' stripping isn't realistic. If people wanted to go out on a street corner and offer strip teases for cash they could but they don't. Why? Because things like this need to be regulated and if prostituion was made legal there would be permits, restrictions, regulations and taxes just like any other business. Your idea of picking someone off the street corner isn't realistic. Health Issues I'm not saying the workers would hide their medical histories I'm saying the CUSTOMERS will hide their medical history. They will hire prostitutes without disclosing a history of STDs because they want the sex. This would cause disease to spread through brothels. You are pushing for an industry where abortion and disease run rampart. This is ridiculous. There is a reason prostituion is illegal. Listen to what you're saying. You want a business where people can buy sex, sell themselves for "easy money" in a place where disease can spread easily from customers and abortion is hailed as a simple Plan B. Moral Issues I highly doubt any families would condone their daughters becoming prostitutes. In fact I can't imagine any fathers talking this over with their daughters and saynig "sure hon, let strange men sleep with you as long as the money is easy". They can quit sure, but the shame might radiate after their employment. What if someone particularly rude or nasty slept with them, the dirty feeling is notoriously hard to eliminate from victims of bad sex or shameful sex. This is a bigger problem then you think it would be. Psychological damage is possible. Teen sex has been accepted by many so it should be accepted by everyone and put up for sale? So if "many people" accept something it should be legalized and put on street corners? What if the majority of people "accepted" murder? Should we let assassins sell their skills on street corners? This logic is completely false. Then you push for teen pregnancy AND abortion? This is down right disgusting.Conclusion I still do not think Pro has fufilled the burden of proof. Pro has not proved to me why prostitution is better than the already large and successful porn and stripping industries. The Cons to prostitution clearly ouweigh the Pros: medically, emotionally, morally and societally.
Should prostitution be legalized in all states

Problem with Stripping Although it can make quick money, but the job is usually late night. Prostitution can be done any time making it a more desirable job. Stripping can cause too much problem from owners that are inconsiderate of the workers, while prostitution is mainly a self-employment thus eliminate that problem. Health Issues I strongly believe that the worker in prostitution care about their own safety from STDs so I highly doubt that they will hide their medical histories. And if a prostitute gets pregnant, then abortion is always a plan B. rebuttal to moral issue The family can talked over it before members of the family goes into prostitution Looks have always been importance in the sex business If people feel ashamed, then they can quit. Just as I said, it is a self-employment so one can quit at anytime. Teen sex has been accepted by many people so it shouldn't be a problem and teen pregnancy will always have abortion as an option. Conclusion My opponent mention that porn are suitable ways to fill this sort of industry but many porn industry only select few out of the most while prostitution is open to everyone. If anyone is worry about the health issues, then we can add more workers to keep track on prostitutes. Even that can increase job opportunities. So legalizing prostitution is a good idea.
Should prostitution be legalized in all states

The Federal IssueI would like to start by saying that if prostitution ever did become legal it should be something chosen on a state by state basis and not by the federal government. For the resolution to reach across all states it would have to be something legalized at the federal level presumably.A Source of Income First of all I don't think prostitution would be as popular as you make it out to be. I don't think people would be willing to have sex for a quick buck. Even if it did become popular it would desensitize sex to a simple hedonistic activity that you can sell at market. i. StrippingWhy can't the stripping industry remain the sole provider for this kind of market. It already helps people make quick money in college and such like you said with out actually having sex. The stripping business being the staple as it is now makes it so prostitution isn't needed. Stripping serves the same purpose as prostitution does. ii. Health IssuesIf prostitution was legalized there would be a whole host of health concerns ranging from hidden medical issues, STDs and liablility problems. What if people hide their medical histories? STDs could run rampart through legal brothels due to indiscretion, carelessness and unsafe sex. If someone lied about having an STD who is liable? The brothel or the person who had the disease or both? What if a prostitute gets pregnant? What happens then? Contraception isn't 100% effective. These are all huge concerns that would have to be managed in court and by the business which frankly can be avoided by keeping stripping joints the way they are and continuing to ban prostitution. Moral Issues The biggest moral issue that would be derived from prostituion is the desensitizing of sex which could lead to a whole host of problems. * It could lead to a rise in teen sex --> teen pregnancy* The family unit would be threatened because if sex is for sale on the streets adultery would be promoted leading to a potential rise in divorce rates * Looks would become something of sexual importance and potential employment purposes in the sex business. * Some people might feel ashamed or soiled after experiencing prostitutionConclusion - Stripping and porn are a suitable way to fill this industry while providing people the finances they need without turning to prostitution- The potential problems with prostitution do not outweigh the potential benefits especially when the market already has strippers and porn.Thank you.
Should prostitution be legalized in all states

I believe that prostitution should be legalized in all states. It can help the people who are currently in need of some money. Without the concern of moral, legalizing prostitution will create a new source of income, and much like the red line district, it is self employed. Not only it is self employed, we can leave it and join it anytime. It can help college student to pay off some fees such as book fee or just pocket changes. It can also help families that need some quick bucks. So Legalizing prostitution can help people who are in need of some money. In terms of moral, it is not really a bad thing considering that it is a people's choice now to prostitute themselves to gain some money. Not only that, they can now be free of pimps' control and it would be much safer for the prostitutes. Not only that, playboy mansion is a high class prostitution ring so it is already being accepted throughout most of the U.S. By legalizing prostitution not only help families and college students, it would make prostitutes more acceptable to the society