BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I will not contradict myself in this debate.

My opponent has made several mistakes. Several rules in this debate are: "1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions." CON has done this, but she has also made a list of ten questions in the fourth round. This goes against the rules and results in a defeat. "3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers." CON has not pointed out a single contradiction in any round. Since she has not pointed out a contradiction in the rounds given by the rules, it shows that I have not contradicted myself and results in a Pro vote. Just to explain rule 6: "If PRO ever fails to answer every question asked in the previous round by the rules, PRO automatically loses." The rules only refer to rounds one through three, and do not include round four, so I do not need to respond to the round 4 questions. I heavily urge a Pro vote. My opponent has broken several rules and has not pointed out a single contradiction.
I will not contradict myself in this debate.

1. Are you a true Christian? 2. Are you part of any online communities such as Facebook or Myspace? 3. Do you believe real names/identities should be withheld from social networking sites? 4. In reference to question 2 in Round 3, yes I do mean the Christian God. 5. Do you think lying is wrong? 6. Do you lie? 7. Do you do things that go against the moral code of your religion? 8. Have you lied at all during this debate? 9. Did you stumble upon this site by yourself? 10. Did someone suggest this site to you?
I will not contradict myself in this debate.

1. Yes. 2. It depends on the situation. If I were to plagiarize a major history paper, then I would consider it wrong. If I were to plagiarize a couple of rules for a debate, I would not really consider that wrong. 3. I adhere to some Christian standards, but I do not adhere to all of them. My opponent needs to clarify which Christian standards she is referencing. 4. It depends on the circumstances. justify-to show a satisfactory reason or excuse for something done. If the mother is in poor health and the baby is in great health, it may not be justified. If the mother is in great health and the baby will probably die in several days or something, it may be justified. My opponent needs to clarify. 5. Yes. 6. No. A thing is known as a material object without life or consciousness. Therefore, all things do not have a right to life because "things" are without life. 7. Yes. 8. Yes. 9. No, because simply saying "PRO" or "CON" does not indicate an opinion about anything. However, if I were to say "PRO" or "CON" to a certain issue, that may be considered something of an opinion, but my opponent's question does not specify what saying "PRO" or "CON" is referring to. 10. In some cases, it can be. However, it other cases, it may not be. My opponent needs to clarify.
I will not contradict myself in this debate.

1. Have you ever plagiarized? 2. Do you think plagiarism is wrong? 3. Do you adhere to Christian standards? 4. If birth is certain to kill the mother but the baby would survive then is abortion justified? 5. Do all people have an equal right to life? 6. Do all things have a right to life? 7. Do you eat meat? 8. Do you think humans should act in accordance to their biological imperatives? 9. Do you believe saying "PRO" or "CON" indicates an opinion? 10. Do you believe PRO or CON is different from omitting an opinion?
NASA is better at space exploration than Virgin Galactic

However, there are monetary benefits to research such as improving their ability to utilize space flight. Since NASA has already gotten the ball rolling why reinvent the wheel, Virgin Galactic can use what NASA has learned and improve upon it doing their own private research. 1) Human Spaceflight Most of what my opponent mentions as the benefits to the ISS can already be performed on Earth in Zero G vacuum conditions without the level of risk and expense involved in space. [1] I will admit ,living in space seems cool which I think is the idea that Virgin Galactic capitalizes on, first short glimpses of space and if all goes well more tours to come. My opponent acknowledges that first does not always mean best. Therefore Virgin can get in the space race late and still make better accomplishments in the end. 2) Unmanned Exploration My opponent contends that since Virgin does not have a proven track record of Space flight it is not a valid comparison to compare it to NASA which has a record of space flight. However, there was a time when NASA was just starting out and didn’t have any record to go by either. 3) Failure of Space Tourism My opponent claims that If the cost of supplies was more than the cost of the money they brought in then they would be losing money. They get their money from their customers so they don’t really have the ability to over spend, if they did they would fail. If NASA over spends they just go to the Government for more money thereby costing even more. 4) Astronaut Safety It was suspected that the shuttle accidents could have been caused by neglect and them not being maintained as well as they should have been and launched under unsafe conditions and therefore totally avoidable. [2] [3] Thanks again to my opponent and I ask the voter to vote con. 1 . http://www.incredible-adventures.com... 2 . http://www.msnbc.msn.com... (see point 7 in this link) 3 . http://faculty.cbpp.uaa.alaska.edu...'s%20Safety%20Culture.pdf
NASA is better at space exploration than Virgin Galactic

Achievements of Human Spaceflight programs It is true Virgin Galactic has not achieved the success in space programs that NASA has yet because they are just getting started, everything has to start somewhere. As I demonstrated in my argument they have in fact had success in other areas their air travel being the most relevant to this. As for it not being able to travel to the ISS, the question there is what is the point of the ISS. Have we made any real scientific progress resulting from it being there? As for NASA beating Virgin to everything, Russia beat America to (a) as well but do we claim that they are better than us? Unmanned Space Exploration of different planets Again you must consider time. Virgin has made innovations in other areas, that is how we can measure their success. Unmanned would be the way to go indeed as the risk is significantly less, and the Mars Rovers are probably NASA’s biggest success in recent years but the price tag is the biggest problem. However, just because Virgin Galactic has not attempted to send anything like that does not mean they would be in capable of doing so in the future. Failure of Space Tourism I have not seen the 20 million figure anywhere else, the official website even says otherwise. True even the listed price of 200,000 is unaffordable to most but even more so is the NASA’s price and besides, most people can’t afford a Yatch cruise either, does that mean it is something people will pay for? The fact is that those who go up are spending their own money so it is no loss to the rest of us. “The company would not put a definite timeline on when the commercial flights would begin. ” NASA has had its fair share of delays, in fact the Shuttle program was originally to have ended last year and in fact was not meant to be in service for 30 years to begin with. The Shuttle program has been seen by many as quite a failure do to the amount of waste and inefficiency. [1] Safety of Astronauts “An explosion killed two engineers working for Virgin Galactic in the Mojave desert. ” NASA has had two shuttles explode killing 16? People and has had various other mishaps. Also, Virgin is trying to hire experience astronauts for their program. Virgin has plans for the future. [2] They plan to utilize their crafts for scientific experimentation as well. [3] NASA has done some good for the scientific community but on a cost vs. benefit scale, they have really fallen short. Thanks again. 1 . http://www.guardian.co.uk... 2 . http://news.discovery.com... 3 . http://www.virgingalactic.com...
NASA is better at space exploration than Virgin Galactic

Here are my rebuttals to his arguments:1) The cost given by my opponent for Virgin galactic is not the cost of the mission but rather, the price that 6 customers would pay to go to space. My opponent cannot say that Virgin Galactic is cost effective unless he can prove that the price of materials, labor etc is less than that of the Space Shuttle and he is welcome to do so in the next round if he wishes. The price that it takes to make the Space craft and launch it is completely different from the price that customers would pay to take a ride in it.2) While it is true that Virgin Galactic's flights are privately funded as opposed to using taxpayer's money, the goal of private spaceflight is to make a profit for the company rather than scientific research that will benefit the community. So, having privately funded flight will not achieve the same goals that publicly funded flight will. Therefore, this does not show that Virgin Galactic is better for the taxpayers than NASA. 3) My opponent is arguing that Virgin Galactic has a proven track record with air travel. However, I counter that NASA has a proven track record with space travel thereby making it better suited for further space travel and exploration and superior to Virgin Galactic. I look forward to my opponent's arguments.
NASA is better at space exploration than Virgin Galactic

As per the guidelines my opponent set out I will be presenting my arguments independent of the ones he has brought up and will address his arguments next round. There are several reasons why Virgin Galactic is better than NASA:1. Virgin Galactic is more cost efficient than NASA. It costs NASA 450 Million dollars to launch a shuttle. [1]In comparison, Virgin Galactic costs $200,000 per passenger with six passengers for a total cost of $1,200,000 [2] [3]2. All costs will be privately funded by the passengers themselves for Virgin rather than taxpayer funded as NASA is. Only those who voluntarily want to participate will pay as opposed to everyone else to support them.3. Virgin is an international corporation that has plenty of money from other ventures to invest in the project. They have already made affordable low cost air travel with a number of amenities included so they have proved they can make something affordable and efficient that people use often. [4] So the space program is a more expensive but still efficient next step. Thanks again to my opponent.1 . http://www.nasa.gov...2 . http://www.virgingalactic.com...3 . http://www.gatagat.com...4. . http://www.virginamerica.com...
NASA is better at space exploration than Virgin Galactic

I am arguing that NASA is better at space exploration than Virgin Galactic. I am leaving "better" open to interpretation so we can point out efficiency, safety, productivity, usefulness etc.1st Round is for acceptance. 2nd for opening arguments. 3rd for rebuttals. 4th for defending your arguments against the rebuttals and closing, no new points. Let me know if you are interested.
Gay Marriage should be legal in all of America

2). Alright let's put it this way, just because someone would rather have something they are not ensured, rather than something they are ensured, does not entitle them to the thing they are not ensured. Rights are not fluid, or exchangeable, when you are entitled to something, I guess you could waiver it, but not exchange it for a different right. The gay people wanting to be treated different than everybody else does not entitle them to this, just because they want different things than other people. 3). Transgender was classified as a mental disorder [1]. You claim that this does not affect them being parents, it happens to be, that it does affect their parenting. Oxytocin, is a neuro-chemical that parents direct toward their children, mothers obviously have more Oxytocin than the father, but still. Anyway, the gay people cannot have children, so there will be no Oxytocin directed toward this adopted child as it is not theirs [2]. Furthermore, a study has shown that gay marriage has an undeniable effect on the child's development [3]. 4). Yes you can [4], and though everyone can get them, it is a higher chance if you are Gay [5]. [1]. http://cnsnews.com... [2]. https://en.wikipedia.org... [3]. https://cola.unh.edu... [4]. http://www.cdc.gov... [5]. http://www.webmd.com...
Gay Marriage should be legal in all of America

1. I will not continue with number one, because the answer cannot be proven. 2. It is not equal, because not everybody in the world is straight. According to this source (listed below), many people are members of the lgbt community. And, according to this article, (listed below) homosexuality is scientifically proven. The definition of marriage is eerie. Are you preferring to the bible and what it says about this? If so, please say so. Gender is fluid. It's been proven that transgender people are diagnosed of gender dysporia. This is when someone has an imbalance of testosterone and estrogen. If one is a trans girl, there's most likely more estrogen and if one is a trans boy, there most likely is more testosterone. And no, children are being taught to bash LGBT (for example: you are the basher). 3. I understand basic science, it is in fact my best subject. I am not talking about physical differences (external and internal), I'm talking about mental ones. And, having an imbalance in these chromosomes is clearly not a problem. You say you're not basing off of gender stereotypes, but it honestly seems that you are. These are differences in the chromosomes, there is no difference between the way that they will be parents. 4. Everyone can get STDs. And, you can't get STDs from sitting on toilets. It's been proven. That's merely a myth... Side notes: You should work on is and are. There are some grammatical mistakes. You didn't give me much actual evidence, by the way. PLEASE VOTE PRO. THANK YOU. http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu... http://www.natureworldnews.com...
Gay Marriage should be legal in all of America

1). How do we know if something violates moral law? This depends, if you have a moral compass, it goes without saying, but if you don"t, you don"t. Morality is not something we can look at and examine under a microscope, you cannot "prove" its existence. Rather, it is self-evident, not me, not you, not any human in the world is in the place to "decide" what is moral, but we are in the place to know, what is moral. So if you don"t believe homosexuality is immoral, I can"t help you, if you don"t know it by yourself, I can"t prove it to you. 2). As you might know, the homosexuals attempts to get this "right to marriage" as they call it, (which is completely ridiculous, marriage is 1 Male+ 1 female, so if they want the right to marriage, they got it, marry someone of the opposite gender; that"s marriage, not me not them not anyone else gets to marry someone of the same gender, so it is not discrimination, it is equality). Has caused it to be tolerated in schools. This is training children to think that homosexuality is OK somehow, hence they will live their life thinking that "morality is fluid just like gender is fluid." Gender is not fluid, you"re a male, female, or a hermaphrodite, you look down, what you see is your gender. So children are literally being taught that things that are obviously wrong, they are both morally wrong and logically wrong. This by no doubt will confuse them, mentally and morally. 3). I understand very well, you are just not understanding what I am saying. In marriage, there is a balance that comes from that. Gay Marriage takes away that balance. I am not basing this off of stereotypes OK, I am basing this off of gender. This is something everyone learns at around 13; there is very distinct differences between males, and females (and hermaphrodites, but they don"t teach you about that). If you have a X chromosome, and another X chromosome, you are a female. If you have a X chromosome, and a Y chromosome, you are a male. If you have a X chromosome and a X/Y chromosome, you are a hermaphrodite. There"s no fluidity to that, it"s kindergarten math! X+X= Female X+Y= Male X+X/Y= Hermaphrodite 4). STD"s, they are actually very easy to get, say a gay guy goes and urinates into a toilet, someone sits on it, they got STD"s. It is deadly, and yes, it is VERY contagious.
Gay Marriage should be legal in all of America

1. Pro states "gay marriage violates moral law." And, what is moral law? According to Google dictionary, it is defined as " an absolute principle defining the criteria of right action." How exactly do you know if something is moral? If it's right, then it is moral. Who decides if something is right? Is this information from the bible, is that what you're following? Being an atheist, I don't use the bible as adequate evidence. However, if you truly believe it's wrong, it's only a few who believe that and a few biased people can't decide if something is moral or not. 2. This "point" is very similar to your first one. In what way will it "pollute" morality? 3. There is not much that separate the genders, genders are not stereotypes. For example, if you have a stereotypically masculine father, and a stereotypically feminine mother, that will be YOUR ideal parents. However, not everyone follows these stereotypes. Understand what I'm saying? 4. How is it a danger to public health? Homosexuality is not contagious, and it's definitely not a health issue. All of your "evidence" is not evidence.
4 is a number

A numeral is word, letter, symbol, or figure, etc., expressing a number [1]. Numerals are also symbols. Symbols, while not the concepts themselves, are used to represent them. [2] 4 is a symbol used to represent the concept of "less than than five and more than three" much as a heart is used to represent the concept of love. While "4" is essential to our understanding of numbers, it is not a number itself. It is a numeral and a symbol. [1]http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://dictionary.reference.com...
Tesla is better than Edison

Tesla did distrust people, but he died penniless by being stabbed in the back by JP Morgan. Tesla was being funded by Morgan to create world wide wireless energy that could be used in every home around the globe. The reason that funding was cut was because Morgan found out that Tesla's intentions were for the energy to be free. Since Morgan could not make any money off of it, and he was a business fat cat, he cut funding. This project was what would make or break Tesla, and ended up breaking him. He was also mentally ill. He went insane afterwards, broken hearted and defeated, and eventually died. Edison was a tinkerer and brought to light the idea of innovation, but for purely the reasons of capital gain. If it was not for Edison's workshop workforce then this air of innovation would not be so strong. Edison hired workers, Tesla being one of them, to work for him and invent and innovate. This is where a majority of his patents came from. They came from the hard work of other people. Edison and Tesla were also both in a race with each other to create a useful form of electricity. What was created in the end was Edison's AC and Tesla's DC. This made Edison upset that Tesla created a form of electrical current that was better than his. To deter people putting favor to DC, Edison held a public demonstration where he electrocuted zoo animals using DC. Tesla was also asked to help with the exhibitions at the Chicago Worlds Fair. Tesla used his very own light bulbs to light up the fair. To light the bulbs, Tesla used his own form of electrical energy, using a power source that was miles away, and without any wires. This was not only an accomplishment that Edison could not create, but has not been reproduced since. Not only were Tesla's ideas miles ahead of Edison's, but Edison was also an unkind, and rude individual.
Tesla is better than Edison

Both Tesla and Edison were very smart inventors, no doubt about that. Edison held thousands of patents on inventions. Tesla, not so many. However, many of Edison's inventions were ideas of people who worked for him, Tesla being one of them. Tesla also created things that cannot even be recreated with todays technology. Whenever the two had similar inventions, Tesla's would usually be first, like the light bulb, or better, such as Direct Current, or DC.
Early Marriage is harmful for people

Although I am frightened by your grammar and lack of concrete evidence, I am willing to debate you on this topic. You said that young marriages lead to divorce, however, divorce is not exclusively for young couples. [1] shows the divorce rates for every state in the US, regardless of age married. Sources:[1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;I realize this argument was extremely short, but you gave nothing to argue and gave no evidentiary support.Your go.
Early Marriage is harmful for people

Early marriage can cause a lot of social and health problemFirst I want to said that people who are getting marriage in early ages doing this because of accidents such as pregancy. And often this marriage is not so strong. because it was like not because of the love or something like that. It was because they have to do that, not because they want it. And also it often leads to divorce. Divroce become social problem because it cause really bad consiqunces. It is bring unhappiness to childhood of the children whos parents get divorced. Second, it can cause psychological and maybe health problem because in the beggining of this marriage is good but for some time it become problem. it all because of argue between couples. If couple argue often, it leads to stress and to the feeling of unsatisfaction of life. That is primary reasons why i think that early marriage is bad for people.
Early Marriage is harmful for people

Yes, things do change over time, but as you and I both have shown, the divorce rates for all ages are pretty high, respectively. If love is required to marry, then why are adults able to marry? You have to experience these falls and these sad times in order to find out what love truly is, and if you start at an early age, then it may be possible that you can find someone you love, quicker. I realize that young, immature minds do not grasp the concept as well as some adult minds do, but we can't discriminate against them and we can't say that their marriage is detrimental because adults have the same problems.Also, you stated "79 percent of teenagers who become pregnant are unmarried." Does this not negate your whole argument that marriage is not solely because of teen pregnancies because there is such a high number of unmarried pregnant teens?I mean, this is a hard topic to debate, as I am no expert on the topic. Neither or us have given sufficient support to sway the readers' opinions, but I suppose that they can still choose a winner.Thanks.