BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Parents Should Tell Their Children About Every Different Religion Instead of Indoctrinating Them

Good morning everyone who is reading this debate. My name is minddrag and I am very happy to meet my find opponent, Trying2Think. Now since my opponent only has a short paragraph as a sort of acceptance, I will only have a mall paragraph outlining my views on this subject. First off, a child is the parents responsibility. This means that the parent is responsible for teaching them anything that the school does not cover, and is responsible for the upbringing of the child until the point that the school takes over, and even on from that point. This means that religion is part of the parents curriculum, not the education system, nor any other system of learning. I believe that the child should be a model of the parent itself, and if the parent only decides to teach the children a certain religion, then that is the religion that is taught in that household. How is it the responsibility of you, I or the government to tell parents what they should teach their children in terms of their religion. Also, most religions have a process where you confirm that you are part of the religion at a later date, mostly when you are old enough to think for yourself. This process in my church is called confirmation, and it is where you take a journey through the christian faith, learn about the faith you were born into and confirm whether or not you would like to be a member of that faith and the congregation. These are my beginning points, and I look forward to a good and fun debate. Thank you.
Parents Should Tell Their Children About Every Different Religion Instead of Indoctrinating Them

In every society, parents should not indoctrinate their children with absolute statements about God, the origin of the universe, or any of the other big questions. Parents should explain the differences between different religions and ideologies. Then they should allow their children to decide for themselves what to believe or reject. If you believe parents should bring up their children to believe a certain way without telling them about alternatives, I would love to debate you. Thanks.
THBT English should be declared a universal/official language worldwide.

1st. We agree there should be a universal language, we disagree that English should be that language. Historically, the language of the most powerful economic powers has been regarded as a trade language. This was once Greek, than latin... Now English, but like Greek and Latin the global power base is moving away from Anglo-saxon dominated nations. This has all happened before in History. === Why English Langage is il-suited :-English is only the 3rd most spoken language on the planet with Aprox. 360 million native speakers. -English is a dificult language to learn with rules that are counter intuitive to most other languages.-English is tied to the American/British Dominate history and culture. === Why Esperanto is supperior : +Esperanto is designed to be culturally neutral+Esperanto is easy to learn, its gramar is designed to be logical+Esperanto is progressive, in the true spirit of global unity. All-in-all English is not a good choice for a truly global language as convient as it would be for English speakers. The history of Anglo-Saxon domination is not easily seperated from the language and wont be readily accepted in a generation or two when English Speaking countries are no longer dominating the world.
THBT English should be declared a universal/official language worldwide.

ARGUMENT: English is already the Worldwide primary language Business, trade, and the internet are all now primarily in English. If the rest of the world is to be able to adapt they have to instruct their people in English, which is what they are already doing. If a member from India goes to Europe and France, it becomes difficult for them to communicate with each other. So, if English would be the universal language it would be easy to communicate. Speaking in English won't make you forget your country. The English Language won't rob you of your culture. You can still speak your own language anytime. The only reason why we have English as a universal language is for us to communicate with each other. This does not mean that French, Filipino, Chinese, Spanish, etc. languages are less beautiful than English. Speaking in English won't mean you neglect your own country. The following links shows it: [1] http://www.englishtown.com... [2] http://careerride.com...
THBT English should be declared a universal/official language worldwide.

Before the debate begins, it will benefit you to look at the following links as I will refrence them frequently in the main stage of our debate and it will save us both some time and effort if we are on the same page during the primary sequence. especially given this Debates parameters. 1. Lojban - a designed language intended to be a global secondary language. Official webpage : . http://www.lojban.org...;useful Secondary refrence : . http://www.omniglot.com...;2. Esperanto- A designed language this is more natural than Lojban. Primary source: . http://www.uea.org...USA Esperanto Association : . http://www.esperanto-usa.org...;A brief history of Esperanto : I will refrence Esperanto more than Lojban, but it will help to be familiar with both.
The land environment restricts human life and is irrelevant

I am arguing that the land environment restricts human life and is irrelevant. By land environment, I suggest the environment based on land (ie. trees and farmland). It is a waste of space- space which could be used to create more services for the general population. Dwellings are made much smaller to accommodate for wildlife, and it is frustrating to know that we are all missing out on so much. Pollution is not extremely bad. It is an indicator of technological advancements. When we make advancements we are able to combat the negatives- millions of people die each year from air pollution, however millions are saved because we have created medical equipment and found cures by using up resources. Algae produces over 2/3 of our oxygen. More algae would mean more oxygen; therefore land environments' photosynthesis is not needed. This argument strongly proposes that the land environment is unnecessary and restrictive.
The land environment restricts human life and is irrelevant

Sorry for posting late, I am quite busy this summer.Anyways, my opponent's arguments can be entirely dismissed as he has not given one source to verify his clearly exaggerated theoretical arguments. He claims pollution isn't bad because it represents an increase in economic activity. However, he has not provided any basis from which he is concluding that the economic benefits outweigh the harms of pollution, apart from the unverifiable argument that more lives would be saved via medical advancements. He also mentions that farming isn't necessary for developed countries like the USA, but fails to mention that it is a significant source of food, especially in local rural areas. Farming is also ingrained into the culture of many areas of the US. To simply eliminate farming through the destruction of the environment would leave millions of farmers out of work, as they are likely unskilled in other fields.His example of gold is somewhat contrived. If, hypothetically, we suddenly found more gold (which he still would need to prove would be the case), its perceived decorative value would go down. Rare items tend to conveniently be regarded as "decorative" and "beautiful", when its real value lies with its rarity. The investment activity for gold would also definitely go down, especially as the Peter Schiff followers stop viewing it as a valid hedge against all that inflation.To conclude, my opponent's arguments for destroying the environment are not sufficiently supported. His arguments which claim an increase in economic activity also fail to hold any real weight as they are clearly exaggerated.
The land environment restricts human life and is irrelevant

The limit of physical space IS an issue for all economies. In all economically developed countries, there is an issue with housing- people can not afford housing, as there is too high a demand with not enough supply. The logical way to get rid of this problem is to build more houses- unfortunately, there is too much land being devoted to the environment for this to happen. More people in housing gives a stronger economy- more people are able to work and get educated. Technological advancements require resources. Precious ores, which are only salvageable from the environment, are very expensive due to rarity. An example of this is gold, which is used in computing and in decoration. If more of the environment was destroyed, more gold would be found and used and more technology would be able to be created at a cheaper price. In the comment section someone posted about resources being destroyed. If we were to destroy more of the environment, and make more advancements with renewable energies, this would not be a problem. We would recycle resources so that we aren't jeopardized from destroying it. CO2 isn't a problem. Algae photosynthesizes too. If we have more algae (by breeding it in the seas and rivers) we can tackle the problem easily. Food is not an issue either. Like I said earlier, food manufacturing is a way for poor countries to develop. An example is Malawi. Hopefully you can see there are no benefits to the environment.
The land environment restricts human life and is irrelevant

What's clear in this debate is that my opponent seems to extend his theoretical arguments as far as he/she wants to. At face value, the arguments for destroying the environment might make sense, but the limits of these arguments need to be evaluated as well. My opponent needs to explain his assumption that the number of lives lost are offset by the number of lives saved. He/she also needs to explain why they think that physical space is an issue that is limiting our economy.I would also like to forewarn the voters against any further exaggerations my opponent's arguments. If he/she continues responding with "this would be solved by the technological advancements created by the destruction of the environment", then he also needs to explain WHY he assumes that.If we compare the global ranking of countries for environmental sustainability, with the ranking of countries for their healthcare services, we see a strong correlation between countries with sustainable environments, and countries with higher-quality healthcare. [1] [2]The rest of my opponent's arguments are mere assumptions. Again, he keeps assuming that all negative effects caused by environmental damage will be offset by technological advancement. Why? He needs to explain this, not me. To add, the effects of destroying the environment to make way for economic activity are also significant. CO2 that is sequestered inside trees, or other plants that absorb the GHG, will be transferred back into the air, trapping heat inside the the atmosphere. The added heat will cause sea levels to rise, which can eventually cause floods over entire cities. Furthermore, destroying farmland also takes away major food sources such as chicken, so there's another negative aspect to destroying the environment.Sources[1] http://thepatientfactor.com...[2] http://epi.yale.edu...;
The land environment restricts human life and is irrelevant

My opponent also doesn't explain his arguments. China has only recently developed. Therefore it is only logical that their healthcare system would lag behind the US. Also, the economic activity that occurs in wildlife and farming is only a fraction of what could happen if the area was used for services like finance or healthcare. Farming is not for developed countries- it should be considered a way for undeveloped countries to develop (such as Malawi and a lot of other African countries). The environment is irrelevant. This does not need to be explained: there are no beneficial uses for it. I did not assume a 1:1 ratio. In fact, I assume more people have been saved by medical advancements than air pollution. The environment with no technology is dangerous and people die from simple conditions. I would like my opponent to give me a reason the environment is beneficial.
The land environment restricts human life and is irrelevant

The two premises of my opponent's arguments, the first one being that land environment is restrictive, and the second one being that it is irrelevant, have not been sufficiently supported by his/her arguments. I agree that the first premise can hold some weight on its own,as shown by my opponent's argument for expanding the area in which humans can use to provide technological advancements - but even there his argument fails to remain consistent. For example, he attempts to imply that there is some sort of 1:1 ratio relationship between the number of lives lost as a result of pollution, and the number of lives saved from medical advancements. This argument can be ignored because he has not indicated why he assumes this.Moreover, China, a country that has (to a very significant degree), disregarded their environment to make way for economic growth, lags way behind the US in healthcare. [1]The second premise of my opponent's argument: that the environment is irrelevant, is not supported at all in his argument. In fact, there is great economic activity in areas dealing with wildlife (not just in zoos), as well farming, and although technology has tapped into theses areas, making them somewhat automated, it's definitely not safe to say that these activities involving the environment do not contribute to economic growth. Certainly, this proves that the environment is relevant.Sources[1] http://thepatientfactor.com...
The U.S should stay close to Israel

=======Counter Arguments=======Pro argues that America should keep close ties to Israel because we have "roots in early times". This is an appeal to tradition -- just because this has historically been the case doesn't mean it is or was what ought to be done. Pro then says that he sees no reason to not stay close to Israel given that they aid us in war, economics and trade. In reality, just the opposite is the case. America's and Israel's relationship is a one way street of the U. S. pouring resources into Israel. Consider that from 1949-1998, Israel has received nearly 85 BILLION dollars, which has cost the U. S. an extra 50 billion in interest;"Even excluding all of these extra costs, America’s $84.8 billion in aid to Israel from fiscal years 1949 through 1998, and the interest the U. S. paid to borrow this money, has cost U. S. taxpayers $134.8 billion, not adjusted for inflation. Or, put another way, the nearly $14,630 every one of 5.8 million Israelis received from the U. S. government by Oct. 31, 1997 has cost American taxpayers $23,240 per Israeli. " [1]As we can see, America is dumping a massive amount of cash into Israel -- at the taxpayers expense. They don't aid us in war, we aid them in war, and whatever it is they trade with us, unless it comes with an extra 85 billion dollars worth of goods and services, its not worth it. =======Conclusion=======American-Israeli relations are basically one-sided. Unless Pro can show that America's connections with Israel are worth the roughly $120,000,000,000 spent (and really, the cost is much higher now that it's 2012), then it is clear that America needs to drastically cut back its ties to Israel.1. . http://ifamericansknew.org...
abortion

GROUP SUSTAINABILITY 1.) Yes. A population can only sustain a certain amount of people. Does that give us the right to decide who lives and who doesn't? This isn't really a good reason because no mother gets and abortion because she feels it's necessary to keep the Earths population from getting to high. 2.) Yes. But we are nowhere near that point. Again as said before, we have no right in saying who lives and who can't. 3.) Again as said before, we have no right to say who lives and who can't. Conclusion: if this is what you are saying, then shouldn't we be aborting almost every kid in Africa at this time now that life is difficult to survive there? Saying killing an unborn baby so it doesn't have to suffer doesn't make sense. "The pregnancy can severely inhibit the mother's ability to sustain other areas of her life, which in turn can impact other possible children born and cared for, and/or future children to come" - obese woman do it all the time. HUMAN RIGHTS 1.) No. You have no right in doing anything about the death penalty because you are no on death row. You have no right in saying the holocaust was wrong because you are not Jewish (assuming you are not Jewish). Anyone who has or was ever threatened by a gun are the only ones who have the right to defend gun control. As you can see none of these make sense. 2.) Yes and no. I don't know anyone who "doesn't accept" pregnant people. 3.) What is considered human rights? Human rights or overall life? How is it good for society? When I see a pregnant woman, I don't think she should kill it so she could "fit in". If you are having a kid, and you can't take care of it, put it up for adoption! She is choosing to a mother when she has sex. Sometimes in her position, probationary will be lucky and not get pregnant. SOCIETAL AND INDIVIDUAL HEALTH 1.) I believe in abortion only for the life of the mother. 2.) I don't think they should give abortions anyways. Let's say a father has his sons party at his house that will be filled with drugs, and the father knows there will be drugs. Does it make it better? No they are still doing the drugs. 3.) Legal and regulated safe access to unlimited hamburgers will provide better control for the health of the people. REDUCTION IN CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR 1.) Yes. 2.) Yes. 3.) No answer. What type of criminal activities? Someone robbing a store? Are you saying society would be better off if they were never born? Obama smoked marijuana when he was young. That was a criminal act. He is now president. If you can find a doctor who is able to do a legal abortion, you can find someone who can take care of the kid. CONCLUSION- abortion is not justified besides the life of the mother. We cannot assume life would be better off if we keep up with abortions. Criminal rate is to small of a point to make.
is the big bang theory real

I am pretty sure that you either didn't completely read my argument or you don't understand it. As my previous argument explained, we don't know where the hot singularity come from yet, just as how Ancient Greeks didn't understand where lightning come from. I can't tell you where the hot singularity come from because even our most advanced scientists don't have the answer to that yet. However, just because we don't know where it come from doesn't mean it come from nothing. You keep telling me to "prove it" but you have yet to provide any evidence toward your hypothesis that an intelligent creator is responsible for everything. The Big Bang Theory is a theory because it matches all our observations of background radiation and the expansion of the universe. Like I said in the past two arguments, there is a chance that the Big Bang Theory isn't the correct explanation, but we have yet to find solid evidence that counters it. The "complex life" you speak of is actually just chemical reactions that work together. The probability of them formed on a planet randomly is extremely low but not impossible. All of which I explained previously. "How does nothing intelligently design each and every animal with each and every incredible function they have?" This isn't really related to the main topic but it's called the Theory of Evolution. Life used to be so much simpler and life now gained all these functions because their ancestors that mutated these traits had an edge over their now extinct competitors. All your questions can literally be answered if you use google. I believe you should google about the Big Bang Theory instead of using debate.org. This is literally going nowhere. It's like debating whether marijuana should be legalized but one side thinks marijuana is a herb for cooking. I would go further in depth and provide you with all the scientific papers related to Big Bang Theory but this isn't science class. Like I said before, I suggest you research about it yourself and try to understand how there is no need for an all powerful creator. Scientific discoveries always lead to more questions, just because we don't have the answer to everything doesn't mean it's God.
is the big bang theory real

First of all, I would love to argue about religion justifying the creation of the universe but as you mentioned, this debate is strictly on the Big Bang theory. You said that the Big Bang theory came from a hot singularity. Where did the hot singularity come from? How can this come from nothing. If it did, prove it. Prove that two of the most famous scientific laws, the law of conservation of energy and matter are not valid. Why don't they apply? Explain the process of something coming from nothing. How does it work? If the Big Bang theory is accurate, then tell me, why aren't there random explosions from a probability all the time. How does nothing create this complex life? How does nothing intelligently design each and every animal with each and every incredible function they have? What proof is there for the Big Bang theory? These are questions that without a valid answer cannot validate any proof that people claim to have on the Big Bang theory. Unless these questions cannot be answered without having a God to assist the process, then how is the Big Bang theory possible?
is the big bang theory real

Facts don't care about feelings. Big Bang Theory may not be real, but it is what we concluded from all the data we collected. God is just a fairy tale for people who can't accept that there are no greater purpose. Who are you to say complex life cannot be a probability or that something cannot come from nothing? God can be used as a solution to everything; the term "God of the gaps" describe this perfectly. Just because there is a convenient answer doesn't mean that answer is correct. I will believe in God if there are hard evidence and not a single book written by some ancient fucks.
Ultimate Rap Battle: The Sequel

You make me cry, with your pathetic attempts you try hard noob, i makes these up with contempt Haha bro, you think that I made them cheat? Nah man they heard my rhymes, now they beaten my meat. You say Im pinocchio, why cause you want my wood? I should beat you in the ground, i would if i could. Now listen up homie, im gonna be straight I got the whole site watchin my debate Yo suck man, are you on crack? You need to get off yo dealers nutsack.
Ultimate Rap Battle: The Sequel

My multi-syllAbic rap magic make the crowd scream "Fantastic!" Watch your trash, shaking their heads, it's so tragic. You know I'm so fly and I'm so hard to beat, Even got your homies in the comments trying to cheat. If you think you the best, just bring it straight from the chest. Don't need that hate and that mess, I'll break you wearing a dress. Ay yo. This competition isn't fair, I know. But don't stoop to the level of Pinocchio. You ain't at my level, so I put on a show. Show you how to flow, and maybe watch you grow. But yo. Until then you need to slow your roll. Earn respect and try to learn from a real deal pro.
Ultimate Rap Battle: The Sequel

I like ya style, and I gotta admits your raps are fine, like a musical mist but mine are better, as you will see my bars a like a hip hop melody. You just told a brotha that rap's about timing My watch is telling me to keep up the rhyming Im gonna school ya, like yo classroom teachers So get off the field, and on to the steel bleachers I ain't afraid of your rhymes, they couldn't be any wacka. why in the hell would i take rapping advice from a cracka?