BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
love

then who deserves death???? terrorist or murderer??? who?? in case of murdering , the dead person experiences death for few minutes and die off... whereas in case of love failure especially the girl cheats a boy , in that case boy experiences death for life long..... i thing the people who experienced can understand ..... sentences are given based on the physical hurtings , but no sentence given for a girl who give mental distress to her lover which comes because of love failure....
That both Evolution and Creationism should be taught in schools

==Opponent's flaws==I will start out the fourth round by showing the flaws in my opponent's argument. Or, better said, he never made an argument. Thus, his BoP can NOT be fulfilled. With that said, he can not win the debate with no arguments. Second, he only refuted the outline of my contentions, and left many details dropped. In conclusion, my opponent did not use a good debate strategy and it is pretty much impossible for him to win this debate. ==Rebuttals== As this is the last round, I will attempt now to make my argument too long, as when my opponent refutes, I can not respond. My opponent states that he has attached a page, yet there is no page attachment that I can see. I did say less people would be mad because the page I cited was of more than five different polls on the subject. I state from the third round:"Then, we see that 30% of people would be upset if only evolution was taught, and just 18% upset if only creationism was taught. And then we see my position, both of the theories taught, has just a 4% unhappy rate, significantly lower than all of the other options. " CA1, Round 3. .. which my opponent failed to respond to. Thus, we can consider this point dropped. My opponent states that 2/3 of people want evolution taught because 30% would be upset (or about 1/3) if it was taught. I can use that logic to say that 82% of people want creationism taught because 18% would be upset if it was taught. Either my opponent's reasoning is wrong, or more people want creationism taught than evolution. Both work for me! You obviously failed to read the evidence. It states "the universe can not create itself. " The most best-explained and most likely explanation is God, who created the universe. It does support creationism. There is also other evidence that supports a young earth and the Bible, and creationism. For example, many "dated" fossils can only be a few thousand years old, pointing to a major flaw in the dating system. Evidence is present in geological, astronomical, and fossilized forms [1]. Separation of science and state is the same basics of separation of religion and state. Science has flaws, and religion has flaws. Both are unproven as the dominant force, and a religious person might not want science in school, and vice versa. And yes, creationism has a basis. I have shown that. I will end my rebuttals here and I thank my opponent for this debate! [1] . http://creation.com...
That both Evolution and Creationism should be taught in schools

My opponent in CA1 points out that my evidence is false. I have attached a works consulted page to "help. " My opponent just succeeded in backing up my point. In their opening statement my opponent stated that BECAUSE of the 50/50 split we need to teach both. Then my opponent attempts to recalculate and say that less people would be mad? That just proves my point that 2/3 of Americans want Evolutionism taught, my opponents Gallup Poll shows that. What I believe my opponent fails to understand is that Creationism doesn't have support. My opponent mentions that thermodynamics but in reality that just shows that something else could have happened. THAT DOES NOT SUPPORT CREATIONISM! It merely allows for the presence of it. Evolution on the other hand has a lot of evidence supporting it. My opponent also fails to understand the separation of church and state. I am stating that because Creationism is a relligious belief with NO evidence supporting it, it would basically be violating the separation because there is no basis for it. Separation of science and state is just something my opponent made up and should not be taken as fact. I look forward to my opponents rebuttal!
That both Evolution and Creationism should be taught in schools

I would like to start by informing my opponent that I do have sources, and I will provide them I my opponent asks for them. I would like to start out with my opponent"s argument 1. My opponent correctly cites a Gallup Poll and shows an almost 50/50 split in BELIEF. Contrary to what my opponent may think that does not show that those people would want their favored theory taught in schools. More than 2/3 of Americans want just Evolution taught in school, regardless of their religious beliefs. According to my opponent "We have the power to implement creationism as a subject in school, and if so many people want it, there is no good reason that we should not take that step." However as we can see that is not valid because people don"t necessarily "want" it. My opponent also mentions that Creationism could be taught as an elective. That would completely violate the Separation of Church and State and given that Christian students already learn it, what would be the point of it? My opponent affirms that it can"t be taught in science classrooms (I will bring that up later) so if it isn"t valid, it can"t be taught. My opponent mentions in their argument 2 that Creationism is viable and has research supporting it. THAT IS FALSE! Creationism has no evidence supporting and referencing Ken ham and answers in genesis isn"t valid evidence. In response to argument 3, Creationsim isn"t a side that can be taught in school. They would learn religion anyway at home. I look forward to my opponents response.
That both Evolution and Creationism should be taught in schools

Welcome to this debate. First round is for acceptance only. The resolution is as follows:"Both creationism and evolution should be taught in school. " I will take the pro side on this resolution. Con will argue that only creationism OR only evolution should be taught in school. Con may not argue that neither should be taught in school. Both evolution and creationism will be recognized as theories:Evolution: "The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. "Creationism: "The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution. "Since the voting system will be a simple "select winner," sources are not needed, but they are encouraged.
That both Evolution and Creationism should be taught in schools

My opponent has yet again failed to understand my point. My argument revolves around the separation of church and state. My opponent repeatedly states that I don't respond. The separation of church and state has been upheld in courts to be saying that you can't combine religion and state. Their is NO counter to that. My opponent repeatedly makes up this "science and state " thing but that makes no sense! Science at least has SUPPORT. Creationism DOES not have support. My opponent says that God is the most likely explanation but provides no support for it. Archaelogical dating is RELIABLE. There is no direct support for Creationism. Again, the separation of church and state HAS to be upheld. I have cited my sources. Also, I have provided arguments, I just didn't give them titles.
Hats should be allowed in school buildings

You're the one who set the limit...Hats do not take away freedom. You can't wear profane material at school, you can't come in with your face covered and you can't wear hats. The school has excersized their right to ban whatever they wish from the premise as long as it is not unfair, which it's not because it bans all hats.Children should not hinge their entire independent idendity on the premise of wearing a hat. Wear a funky shirt, wear light up shoes or put a hat on when you get home. This does not damage kids by not allowing them to wear hats in school.School is a professional environment and hats would only tarnish that. Kids can get their parents to stand up for them but they would only fail. It is school policy.
Hats should be allowed in school buildings

You are above everything very rude. I didn't ignore you on the other things you said, there was just more i wanted to say but because of the limit... anyway, hats take away freedom, anybody should wear them whenever they want. It is because of people like you that people are shy and can't become independent. You can wear them where ever you want, but just because kids are little and can't stand up for themselves against a teacher or other adult (you) means that where ever else you go you can because you are an adult. That is very wrong!!! kids should not have all rights but wearing hats inside is not a big deal!!!
Hats should be allowed in school buildings

Because swearing and giving the people the finger are always disrespectful while wearing hats is only disrespectful inside. Hat day is done usually as a fundraiser and entices people by changing the status quo for a short time. Hats in themselves are not disrespectful but are only so when worn inside of government buildings. Also, your survey is useless because a) you could have made it up and b) it is a logical fallacy to appeal to authority. You dropped my other two points as well and merely focused on the disrespectful aspect of it. The school has provided good reason for banning hats (to eliminate distractions and rivalries) and has excersized their right to do so. There is nothing wrong with that.
Hats should be allowed in school buildings

I’ve heard it’s disrespectful but if it is why do we have hat day? That’s pretty much like calling it disrespectful day. For example it’s like saying swearing is disrespectful (which it is) and then having swear day or saying it’s okay to give someone the finger today. Same thing Hats should be allowed school because if it’s disrespectful they shouldn’t have hat day! My grandson did a survey in his class and 94% of the students said hats should be allowed in class. It also makes students fill more comfortable in school.
Hats should be allowed in school buildings

DistractionHats can be distracting to students in class or to teachers. It can inflame sports rivalries, gang rivalries or be just silly or outrageous. They can be used to shield the eyes from teachers or wear in a distracting manner.Respect School buildings are government buildings and it is usual procedure to to remove your hat inside government buildings. This goes for government officials, military personel and students. Their Right The government and the school district has the right to ban hats on their premises if they wish. As long as all hats are banned it can fit into acceptable policy. - Hats could be distracting to students. It is disrespectful to wear them inside and the school has the right to ban them if they wish.750 limit.
Abortion

I do not agree that abortion is murder.Arguments1. The Fetus is not alive The Fetus is not alive. The fetus cannot respire on it's own, and cannot sense. The fetus cannot reproduce, or take in nutrition. Because they cannot do these things that a human being does, and to become a human being, you need these. However, a fetus does not have sense yet, cannot respire on it's own, cannot reproduce, and cannot get nutrition by it's own.2. LibertyThe mom's have the liberty of choice of what to do to their son/ daughter. The children are from the parents, and the parents are allowed to do anything to their own children. There is liberty of the parents choice. [1]Sources[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...Thank you.
Vaccinations do not cause Autism, Homosexuality, Or any serious illness (unless you are allergic)

Notwithstanding the fact that Pro's Round 3 is just as contradictory as their Rounds 1 and 2. Lets cut to the chase and discuss M. M. R. The whole thrust of the anti-vaccine lobby is centred on the issue of a possibly adverse reaction to a vaccine in a small number of cases. Without going into comparative statistics, This is the exact same reason why we vaccinate against Measles, Mumps and Rubella. That is to say that In a small number of cases there may be an adverse reaction to one of these viruses. When I was a child there was no M. M. R. Vaccination available. Contracting these viruses was simply regarded as a normal stage in the growing process and they were treated with the same respect as other common viral infections. In the case of M. M. R. I personally regard this as simply an issue if pre-immunisation versus post-immunisation. In both instances there is going to be a similar and inevitable risk of an adverse reaction in a small number of cases. Therefore: Where common mild viral infections are concerned I would continue to suggest that vaccination is not necessarily important. Of course what is important to certain lobbies is the multi-billion dollar M. M. R. Vaccine monopoly. How do you market a product that is not necessarily important? By making people believe that your product is something that they simply cannot live without. To reiterate and for the record: I am neither pro nor anti vaccine. What I attempt to be is pro common sense. In this respect I regard immunisation against previously common high risk infections such as Tuberculosis or Poliomyelitis for example, As being completely sensible. I would imagine that it is fair to suggest that it is possible to create vaccines to immunise against any indentifiable infection. And I would also suggest that it is fair to imply that it is possible to have an adverse reaction to any infection. Hopefully, The bottom line in decision making is going to centre around a sensible judgement based primarily on risk. Nonetheless I would suggest that in todays society, Profitability is more often than not a greater factor in decision making. Statistics: Statistics is really a whole debate in itself. The reality is that it is possible to create a set of statistics to either validate or invalid something, Depending upon the requirements of those commissioning the statistician. For this reason I would suggest that pro-vaccine statistics are probably just as unreliable as anti-vaccine statistics. Finally: " I've yet to see a reputable source show me anything in support of these mind numbing opinions". As Pro firmly agrees that in a small number of cases there is the possibility of an allergic reaction to a vaccination, Which may or may not cause "serious illness". Isn't Pro unwittingly, Putting their own reputation on the line?
Vaccinations do not cause Autism, Homosexuality, Or any serious illness (unless you are allergic)

Hi there con! Thanks for responding so quickly! I'm sorry you feel that this was a debate about how I wrote my argument, I thought the statement in my opening argument "I've yet to see a reputable source show me anything in support of these mind numbing opinions" would be enough for you to realize that this argument was geared towards anti-vaccinators! You keep claiming that my statement is contradicting itself. . . But you fail to realize that my statement "(unless you are allergic)" was only meant to relate to the "Serious Illness" section. While i'm sorry you interpreted it in an unintended way, Your argument of me implying "Vaccinations do not cause, But vaccinations might cause. " is just invalid. Let me put it in simpler terms; the statement of my title is more of a "Vaccinations do not cause unless this very rare thing that impacts less than. 5% of people" (https://vaccine-safety-training. Org/rates-of-adverse-vaccine-reactions. Html) Now that we have that out of the way, Your other argument is just absurd Of course I agree with you that a miniscule amount of cases may be impacted by allergies, Because I made that statement! You can't argue that my title is poorly constructed, And then agree with me with no other points of argument, That's just you being a grammar nazi! You mention that some vaccines are not necessary, I ask, Please provide those vaccines names and why you do not think they are important to further this argument away from my title, Since it has nothing to do with what I want to debate, And your initial theory is debunked. Thanks! <3
Vaccinations do not cause Autism, Homosexuality, Or any serious illness (unless you are allergic)

Firstly: Nowhere in Pro's proposition is there any suggestion that this debate is specifically pro-vaccine versus anti-vaccine. The proposition is quite specific and clear. "Vaccinations do not cause". Yet Pro also implies that an allergic reaction to a vaccine might cause. No amount of commas will make any difference, To either the inference or the implication. I'm am not saying that Pro's statement is false, But what I am say is that pro's statement is overtly contradictory. Vaccinations do not cause, But vaccinations might cause. For the record: I am not specifically pro or anti vaccination. I think that certain vaccines are extremely worthwhile and I also think that certain vaccines are not necessarily as important. But with regard to Pro's assertion: I am in agreement with their implication that in some instances adverse reactions to vaccines in a small number of cases probably results in serious physiological problems. Allergy: "A damaging immune response by the body to a substance". After all, Nuts kill in a small number of cases. So why in a small number of cases wouldn't there be a damaging immune response by the body to a vaccine? And let's not forget. Pro implies that they already agree with this principle.
Vaccinations do not cause Autism, Homosexuality, Or any serious illness (unless you are allergic)

Like This! Hi there! To start off, My title isn't meant to mean "If you are allergic to a type of vaccine, They can make you homosexual". Rather, It's meant to provide insight into the fact that yes, You can become sick from a vaccine injection if you are allergic to the ingredients. The bracketed portion is not meant to relate to the other sections of the title other than the "serious illness" part, Hence the comma right before the section. Secondly, You mentioned in your argument "Pro has undeniably inferred that in some instances an allergic reaction to a vaccine can cause an adverse physiological reaction. " as if it is a false statement. Most people are completely fine to ignore this, In fact, I might argue that 99% of people do not have to worry about this. But the fact of the matter is that the problem still exists, So I did use it in my title. I cannot tell if you are Anti-Vax, Mainly because your argument is just "This title is bad". If you are anti-vax, Please do provide your reason for believing so! <3
Vaccinations do not cause Autism, Homosexuality, Or any serious illness (unless you are allergic)

Hello. I will accept. Primarily for the literary challenge. Pro shoots themselves in the foot somewhat, By inserting "unless you are allergic" at the end of their proposition. Pro has undeniably inferred that in some instances an allergic reaction to a vaccine can cause an adverse physiological reaction. Similarly: By association, The whole proposition clearly implies that an allergic response to a vaccine could possibly cause "autism, Homosexuality or any serious illness". I would suggest that the above premise that Pro has unwittingly invoked is probably the primary argument used by the anti- vaccine lobby. Unintentionally or not Pro has come out in opposition to their own argument. So how do they intend to move this debate forward?
Vaccinations do not cause Autism, Homosexuality, Or any serious illness (unless you are allergic)

I've yet to see a reputable source show me anything in support of these mind numbing opinions Please do not use the following arguments: "I cannot find any research because the government controls the internet" You can't back up a claim with a lack of evidence "My *insert friend/family* died from vaccinations" Unless you have records that show proof that the vaccination caused autism, This isn't proof, For all I know you could be lying "The Bible doesn't have vaccinations in them, So they must be bad! " This is a surprisingly common argument, And it uses personal beliefs, Please use cold hard evidence and facts <3
US Soccer Team Is Better Than Mexico National Team

Overall, http://national-soccer-teams.pointafter.com... shows how the Mexican Soccer Teams are much better quality and skillful than the USA teams. With a great head coach- Miguel Herrera- and amazing players, Mexico will soon be one of the highest ranked teams this year. http://www.espnfc.com.au... has all the best Mexican teams and they are all improving. USA however isn't as skilled and has a higher loss percentage.
US Soccer Team Is Better Than Mexico National Team

Aye, I'm done with this argument. I do not want to forfeit so just keep the thing going. USA will always be better. I literally just went to the US vs. Mexico game on Wednesday and right when I got back to school was when I could talk the most sh*t. But too many annoying Mexicans annoy me and I am f*cking exhausted from the week. Maybe we can debate another time. PS. US had the harder teams to beat in the World Cup. XD ^_^ I do apologize for not finishing the debate. Definitely another time! And I can bet a lot that you were born and raised in the USA. Lmao!
US Soccer Team Is Better Than Mexico National Team

A sports rivalry that exists between the national soccer teams of Mexico and the United States, widely considered the two major powers of CONCACAF. Matches between the two nations often attract much media attention, public interest and comment in both countries. The first match was played in 1934, and the teams have met 62 times, with Mexico leading the overall series 33 wins, 18 losses and 14 tied. They are outscoring the U.S. 131–73. Soccer is defined as a form of football played by two teams of eleven players with a round ball which may not be handled during play except by the goalkeepers.Goal Keepers are very important in the game of soccer. With Tim Howard decreasing in liability, our goalie, Guillero Ochoa. Mr Ochoa is a 29 year old man who is strong, fast and has speedy reflexes. The perfect necessabilities for a goalie to have. http://en.wikipedia.org...Javier Hernandez is 26 and has the position of a forward. http://www1.skysports.com... says that Javier has almost topped to chart for most goals made. He is young, speedy, powerful and a deadly forward.http://www.ussoccer.com... The Mexicans women's soccer team had a key player injured during the 3 game play off against the US. http://www.ussoccer.com... The Mexico Women's team ranking in 2015, currently is 25. This season they have only lost 6/27. Meaning that they've only lost 22% of they're games.We can recall that the men's team is booming with young men who are capable to work, and the women's team has rarely lost so far this season. Both are incredible turnouts, GO MEXICO!!!!!!
US Soccer Team Is Better Than Mexico National Team

Better/Best: Overall players, ranking, etc.Rules: Based on personal preference (with examples or facts) and stats.I believe the US Men's/Women's National Soccer team is the best when it comes to US vs. Mexico. Although our goalie Tim Howard is slowly decreasing in liability, he is still one of the best. Ochoa is probably the best player on Mexico's team. He's the key element of the team. US actually has amazing players. In the world cup, we had one of the hardest teams. We didn't fail miserably against Germany, Portugal wasn't on it's best, and Ghana...well that was, eh. And I hope we will win out friendly today against Mexico (taking place in Texas.